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
16989404
label
Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16989404
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (5)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Ethnic groups
Intergovernmental relations
Local government
Urban policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16989404
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-05-01
month
5
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
ccf76b0c26a5ad68
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 38, folder "Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (5)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
chayer redined redined
DRAFT
Oct. 19, 1976
Response by President Ford to the Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
I welcome the report from Secretary Hills and the
President's Commission on Urban Development and Neighborhood
Revitalization. This report reflects a realistic, common
sense, practical approach to the urban condition. It is
straight talk -- and not empty elusive, political promises.
This report clearly shows that the plight of many older
American cities today results from a combination of complex
and inter-related forces: not enough jobs, too many poor
and The bear of crime,
people, WAA crime deteriorating housing and property
values, inadequate schools, rising costs, declining public
services, congested traffic and overcrowded mass transportation,
and too often, lack of local political leadership.
But this report also shows:
I
That there is hope, confidence and a will to
succeed in American cities.
---
That what the people of the cities want is individual
opportunity and economic stability -- not a Federal
handout.
--
That what their leaders want is the chance and the
resources to bring about their own revitalization
and growth -- and not political promises of magic
solutions from Washington.
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
Digitized from Box 38 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2
Because a majority of Americans live in merropolitan
areas, the "problems of the cities" are, in concentrated form,
largely those of American domestic policy generally. Consistent
with our overall domestic policy, my Administration, from its
beginning, has followed a clear national urban policy: to
provide the cities the towns. the villages, communities and Their
neighborhoods throughout the land with opportunity, flexibility,
incentives and a fair share of Federal resources to solve
their own problems and manage their own growth and progress.
best Soveme is is that
This policy is based on the principle that the levels of govern-
ment closest to the people problems are best able to respond.
To carry out this policy, here are some of the things this
Administration has done and will continue to do:
1.
General Revenue Sharing. This is the most important
program of Federal assistance to local governments in American
history. Since 1972 we have returned to cities, counties,
towns, communities and states
billion dollars to
assist the people in meeting public needs. This program
has already immensely helped our cities, and the General
Revenue Sharing extension which I signed last week will
provide
billion dollars more for these purposes.
2.
Community Development. The first major legislation
I signed as President was the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974. Through this Act we have provided more than
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
3
A
one million new and renovated homes for American families.
frommin
My goal is a home for every American family that wants to own
a home and is willing to work and save for it.
3.
Transportation. There must be swift and convenient
transportation within and into our cities and communities.
In the last two years we have provided
billion
dollars in Federal funds as our part in the working partner-
ship with State and local governments to provide urban trans-
portation.
4.
Crime. I am determined to lead a Federal, State,
local and community effort to make the streets and home of
America safe for every man, woman and child. We must get
the career criminals off the streets and into jails. We can
do this with the certain sentences for Federal crimes I have
proposed to Congress as a model for State and local govern-
ments. One of my top priorities in the first 100 days of
the new term will be to rally all America behind Federal anti-
crime legislation.
5.
Jobs. I am dedicated to the principle that every
American who wants a job should have a job. We have trained
million Americans through the CETA program and
other Federal programs; but we need to do more. Last January
I proposed a job creation program in high unemployment areas,
but Congress failed to act. I shall propose to the next
Congress a program to provide for young Americans the training
&
FORD
GERAL
LIBRAN
4
and experience they need to practice a trade or a craft or a
practical business skill. We must put all of America to work.
6.
Education. The goal of my Administration is a
quality education for every young American. We need reforms
in Federal and State education procedures to make certain
that teachers can spend more time teaching instead of filling
out government forms. We need diversity and competition in
education. We need to preserve our non-public schools and
to make our public schools better.
7.
Recreation. our cities are centers for the arts,
culture.) creativity, entertainment recreation.
(Details Tk)
ah
100
Leadership. We need good leadership -- good mayors,
good city councilmen, dedicated public servants who will put
principles above politics, whatever their political party
STABLE
you
Chriving Economy. Most of all, our cities and
neighborhoods need a thriving national economy, a healthy
growth in useful productive jobs in private industry, and
control of inflation. I will continue my commitment to combat
inflation, to restore an orderly steady growth to the American
economy.
All of the resources of government combined are not
enough to solve our urban problems. The private sector must
be the major participant, and accnomic development is the best
way to encourage business and industry involvement.
GERALD FORD
5
Finally, we must recognize that our cities and their
neighborhoods will not flourish nor fail because of what we
do for them in Washington. Their success depends on what
the people in the cities, and their leaders, do for themselves.
They are succeeding and will continue to do so as long as
honest and realistic solutions are arrived at locally, and
supported nationally. I intend to see that this support is
applied with wisdom, imagination and prudence, but, above
all, with a conviction that our cities are irreplaceable
resources which shall never be abandoned.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Tuesday, Oct. 19
JMC:
Art and Lynn May need to speak
with you tonight re: attached
memo.
cameron
5:27
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
JIM LYNN
BILL SEIDMAN
JIM CAVANAUGH
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
JIM CANNON HrD Quern
SUBJECT:
Interim Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development
and Neighborhood Revitalization.
The attached report reflects the revisions agreed upon in
Sunday's meeting with the President. Also attached is an
executive summary.
Your concurrence and/or recommendations on the material
would be appreciated by c.o.b. this evening, so that final
typing can be effected for tomorrow's release.
Attachments
61 G Wd 61 130 9661
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTERIM REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE
ON
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
President Ford created his Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization on June 30, 1976, stating a concern
that
"
the cities of this nation and the neighborhoods which
are their backbone today face increasingly difficult problems
of decay and decline." In the intervening months, members
of the Committee have visited large and small cities in
different parts of the country. We have talked with city
officials, civic leaders, businessmen, neighborhood group
leaders and individual citizens about their neighborhoods and
their cities.
The Committee found that many urban areas have had difficulty
in dealing with losses of jobs and industry, problems of racial
tension, issues of crime and educational policy. But we also
found many hopeful signs for the Nation's cities. The Committee
inventoried the many assets of our urban areas --- their capital
infrastructures, housing stock, neighborhoods and most of all
their citizenry. With greater flexibility in the use of federal
assistance, many cities have taken innovative and effective steps
to deal with their problems.
This interim report is a statement of the Committee's progress
to date. It is not intended to provide a total strategy to solve
the very complex problems of our urban areas. Rather, the
report sums up the Committee's initial observations, assesses
some of the Federal policies and programs which most directly
impact the cities, states a set of principles for future Federal
urban policy and sets forth preliminary recommendations. Finally,
this interim report sets out an agenda for moving towards national
urban policy reform.
The Committee did not recommend massive new Federal assistance
to the cities at this time. The Committee believes that if spending
programs are properly coordinated and targeted to real needs, the
billions of federal dollars now being spent on domestic programs
will more effectively help the cities. In contrast, large new
outlays, which mean either higher taxes on wage earners or a new
inflationary spiral, could exacerbate the urban crisis.
18689 GERALD FORD
- 2 -
The Committee's interim report articulates the following set
of principles to guide Federal urban policy:
- The preservation of the Nation's housing stock, the restoration
of the vitality of its urban neighborhoods, and the promotion
of healthy economic development for its central cities must
become a national priority, to be met by a creative
partnership between the public and private sectors.
--- Federal resources must be targeted to the areas of
greatest need, recognizing the disproportionate social
and economic burdens borne by individual communities
or classes of citizens.
--- The delivery of Federal assistance to urban areas must
be made more efficient. The Committee recommends expansion
of the use of block grants in providing Federal assistance
to urban areas, because block grants are more efficient,
more responsive to local needs, and ultimately more
democratic methods of aiding the cities than the
massive categorical programs of the 1950's and 1960's.
-- In moving towards block grants, electoral responsibility
for the use of Federal funds must be established, citizen
participation and a role for neighborhood groups must
be assured, the rights of minorities must be protected,
and the capacity of local and state governments to administer
their block grants should be improved. Finally, block
grants should be structured to facilitate their creative
combination at the local level with other sources of public
and private funds.
On the basis of successful experiences with recent Federal
block grant programs, the report recommends the consolidation of
other existing categorical programs into block grants in several
broad areas of federal assistance, including:
---- housing subsidies;
---- urban surface transportation;
---- health services;
-- and education
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
The Committee's other recommendations at this time
include:
-- A comprehensive review of present Federal aid formulas
to determine their impact on "declining" cities and the
states in which they are located.
-- A review of Federal tax policies with a view to providing
greater incentives for the preservation and rehabilitation
of urban homes and buildings and for business investment
in urban areas with high unemployment.
--- An aggressive search for new means of increasing private
sector employment opportunities for inner-city youths.
--- A stand-by program of countercyclical block grant
assistance to areas with high unemployment in the
event of future recessions.
-- Legislation to allow nonjudicial foreclosure of
Federally-insured properties to reduce the
incidence of boarded-up housing.
-- Vigorous enforcement of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
of 1975 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act amendments
of 1976, with a view to eliminating "redlining."
--- Endorsement of an expansion of the Urban Homesteading
program.
The future agenda for the Committee includes study of the
public and private roles in:
--- Improving the commercial and industrial bases of our
cities, particularly in the Northeast and North Central
corridor;
--- The complex inter-relationship between the center
cities and the larger metropolitan areas in which
they are located;
--- Reducing the vulnerability of the cities to both
cyclical and structural economic change;
--- Reversing neighborhood decline, with a particular
emphasis on the role of neighborhood organizations
in preservation strategies,
DERALD FORD VIBRAST
- 4 -
--- Meeting the needs of fast-growing cities to anticipate
and plan for future growth patterns and public service
needs; and
--- Improving the linkages between Federal assistance
flowing to different recipients but with
common objectives.
GERALD B FORD LIBRARY
2
INTERIM REPORT
OF
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
OCTOBER 1976
DRAFT - NOT FOR DUPLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION
This draft of the Committee's interim report was prepared
at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with
the assistance of staff from other agencies. Changes
will be made after discussions with Committee members.
I.
Introduction
President Ford created the President's Committee
on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
on June 30, 1976. The President stated in his
announcement: "The cities of this nation and the
neighborhoods which are their backbone today face
increasingly difficult problems of decay and decline."
He pointed in particular toward the nation's older
cities, those which are forced "to cope with the
potentially devastating pressures of a stagnant or
declining economic base coupled with a growing need
for services which are becoming more and more expensive."
The President's action to establish the Committee
was a response to leaders of neighborhood organizations
who came to the White House on May 5, 1976, for a
conference on "Ethnicity and Neighborhood Revitalization."
Participants in the conference urged the President to set
up a task force within the Government to review all major
Federal programs that have an impact upon urban and
neighborhood life.
The backdrop for the Committee's mission is
Federal policy in the 1950's and 1960's. During those
years, in the older central cities, the Federal
Government's emphasis was on massive "slum" clearance
-2-
and new social programs; at the metropolitan fringe, the
emphasis was on providing inducements for rapid
growth. Sound. neighborhoods, which looked like slums
to planners, were leveled; their residents were
scattered to adjacent stable neighborhoods or the
suburbs. Federally-financed freeways ploughed through
other neighborhoods, causing further displacement and
social upheaval and providing convenient avenues for
suburban commuters. Freeways also provided a new
"Main Street" for expanding commercial and industrial
development outside the old city limits. Federal
mortgage insurance provided by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA)
helped to spur development and push metropolitan
boundaries farther and farther out.
In the middle, between downtowns cleared and
rebuilt by urban renewal and the new "outer city,"
lie the older neighborhoods of our central cities
and inner suburbs. These are the places which have
historically provided homes and a sense of community
for millions of Americans who came from foreign
countries and rural areas to seek opportunities in
our urban centers.
-3-
As Monsignor Geno C. Baroni, President of the
National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, has said:
"[T]he richness of any city is epitomized by healthy
neighborhoods, a sense of place in which the human
dimensions of family, friendship and tradition can
be maximized "
"It is not an exaggeration to say that his-
torically our cities have offered unequaled physical,
social and cultural richness. Even today, despite'
the staggering difficulties under which they labor,
the urban areas of our country retain the potential
for offering that wealth and there is growing agreement
that a major national effort is in order so that such
potential may be restored and utilized. II
The long-range goal of the President's Committee
is to shape policies and programs which make the most of
the economic and social resources of the cities'
recognizing the unique assets of the cities' diverse
neighborhoods and people. To achieve that goal will
take a long time: the problems are profound, the
issues complex. Instant solutions do not leap out
from analysis.
-4-
This interim report deals primarily with Federal
programs; however, we recognize that action by State
and local governments and the private sector are also
critically important. Moveover, certain major issues,
such as welfare reform and reform of the criminal
justice system, which the Committee believes are
important to urban development and neighborhood revita-
lization, are being considered in other forums and are
not specifically addressed in this interim report.
The report also does not cover the same ground as
the President's 1976 Report on National Growth and
Development submitted in February, a report which compiles
and analyzes a large volume of information relevant to
cities. Nor do we review here the massive amounts of
data gathered by such agencies as the Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations, or by research centers
such as the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution,
although their research and analyses have been helpful
to the Committee.
-5-
Nor is this report intended to serve as a statement
of a total urban strategy for this Administration. Rather,
the report is intended as the preface to what must be a
longer-range agenda. Its purpose is to sum up the
Committee's initial observations, to assess some of the
Federal policies and programs which most directly impact
on cities, to make a few preliminary recommendations based
on those observations and assessments, and finally, to
suggest an agenda for moving toward national urban policy
reform.
In looking ahead, the Committee recognizes the need
to stay generally within existing funding levels. Sharp
increases in Federal spending for new programs would mean
one of two things: higher taxes on individuals and the
job-producing private sector, or a new inflationary spiral
caused by a huge Federal deficit. A thriving national
economy, with increasing employment and decreasing inflation,
will do more for our cities and neighborhoods than a panoply
of new programs.
Just as important, we do not know whether substantial
additional Federal expenditures for the cities would bring
any significant long-term improvement in their condition.
The tens of billions expended each year by the Federal government
are spent in a tangled and often contradictory fashion.
Properly targeted, in accordance with locally conceived
long-range plans, these monies may prove to be quite ample.
-6-
Accordingly, a massive expansion of resources for
central cities simply is neither feasible nor wise at this
time. Instead, there should be a better targeting of
existing resources. Although some increase in government
spending may be called for and the flow of that spending
may need to be changed, such decisions cannot be made until
the Committee has completed the task of organizing and
managing the resources we already have.
II. Summary of the Committee's Observations
The President's charge to the Committee directed us
"to seek the perspectives of local officials and neighborhood
groups on Federal programs which affect them," and carrying
out that charge has been an important part of the work of
the Committee during its first several weeks of operation.
The Committee also has compiled and begun to analyze
information on the Federal programs which have an impact
on cities and neighborhoods, and there have been numerous
ad hoc meetings between Committee principals, as well as
at the staff level, to explore opportunities for improved
interagency cooperation. For example, Secretary Coleman
(Transportation), Secretary Hills (Housing and Urban
Development), and Secretary Richardson (Commerce) are
discussing possibilities for improving the focus of their
departments' programs in five cities (Buffalo, Atlanta,
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Miami) where the Depart-
-7-
ment of Transportation is committing over $5 billion for
new mass transit development.
Between August 2 and September 24, individual
members of the Committee have visited the following cities:
Boston, Cleveland, Baltimore, Hartford, Newark, San Diego,
New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma City, and Springfield,
Illinois. The purpose of these visits was neither to
defend old policies nor to unveil new ones, but rather to
listen to what people had to say about their cities and
neighborhoods, to see what they wanted to show us, and
finally, to discuss with them how the Federal Government's
efforts might more effectively be directed.
The city visits provided members of the Committee
direct contact with mayors, key city officials, neighborhood
leaders, businessmen, and individual citizens. We talked
at length with mayors about their struggles to make ends
meet, about state constitutional and statutory restrictions
on city powers, about their efforts to work with state
governments to achieve greater understanding and respon-
siveness to city problems, and about their frustrations in
dealing with the multitude of Federal programs--each with
its own requirements and regulations, and many outside of
their management control entirely.
The Committee also visited neighborhoods and talked
with neighborhood leaders about their efforts to fight
-8-
decay and restore stability and vitality, about their
problems with City Hall, about Federal programs and tax
policy which seem to be hindering their efforts, about
"redlining," and about crime and racial tensions which
threaten their neighborhoods.
We talked with civic leaders and businessmen concerned
about the viability of central city investments, about the
availability of good housing and healthy neighborhoods
for workers, about traffic congestion and mass transit and
about the quality and growing costs of public services.
All of these discussions provided the Committee additional
insights into the complex long-term problems with which
city leaders and citizens must cope.
At the heart of the problem facing the older central
cities and inner suburbs in recent decades has been their
inability to compete successfully for the people and
investments they need to maintain an adequate tax base
to support needed public services. Nationwide, employment
grew in the suburbs by 3.2 percent between 1973 and 1975,
and declined in the central cities by 3.7 percent. More
importantly, there has been a general shift of population
and development from the Northeast and Northcentral
states to the South and West. More than 80 percent of
the nation's population growth since 1970 has occurred
-9-
in the South and West. Thus, some cities face problems
that are much more severe than others. Among the
eastern and northern cities visited by the Committee,
for example, Baltimore lost 7 percent of its population,
Pittsburgh lost 21 percent, and Cleveland lost 23
percent since 1960. Total employment has decreased by
almost 7 percent in Boston, by 10 percent in Hartford,
and by almost 21 percent in Newark.
Typically, central city population losses have been
disproportionately among middle and upper income groups,
resulting in an even larger proportion of poor among
thost that remain. For example, the number of single
parent and elderly households has increased significantly
in the cities, and many of these households have only
marginal incomes. Between 1970 and 1974, the income of
families moving out of central cities throughout the
Nation averaged $1,034 more per family than the income
of families moving in.
The movement of jobs and wage earners out of the
central city has produced a corresponding erosion in its
tax base, leaving fewer resources to pay for needed public
services. As the cost of government in older cities
has been going up, due in part to inflationary pressures,
the property tax base which generates most local revenue
has not kept pace. For example, between 1965 and 1973,
-10-
Baltimore expenditures grew by 172 percent, but its
assessed value increased by only 11 percent. In some
cities, such as Newark and Cleveland, there has been an
actual decline in assessed value. The fiscal position
of many cities worsened during the recent recession, and
the older cities were hit especially hard by the resulting
unemployment and reduced revenues, forcing painful
budget cuts and public employee layoffs.
Complicating the fiscal and economic plight of
central cities is a tangle of social problems which
threaten to stifle the civic morale of many neighborhoods.
For example, racial discrimination in jobs and housing
persists, closing off opportunities for improvement to
those located in central city ghettos. At the neighborhood
level, tension between racial and ethnic groups can cause
rapid population turnover destroying the fabric of
community life and the stability of once sound neighborhoods.
Crime is another intractable problem plaguing the
cities. The national crime rate is about 41 major crimes
per 1,000 residents, but cities such as Baltimore, Boston,
and Newark have about double the national rate. Crime
and the fear of crime are having a devastating impact on
neighborhoods which could otherwise remain stable or
attract middle-income people back into the city.
-11-
Education is another major concern. Cross-city
busing, violence in and around schools, and decline in
educational quality have put center cities and older
suburbs at a disadvantage relative to suburban schools,
which are viewed as safer and of better quality. Wide-
spread reliance on private schools in many large cities
raises the cost of living for middle-class families who
might otherwise choose to live there.
In spite of the problems described by the hundreds
of officials and neighborhood residents with whom we talked,
members of the Committee did not leave the cities with
a litany of despair ringing in their ears.
Mayors showed us exciting examples of thriving
downtown redevelopment including new parks and success-
ful commercial enterprises. In Baltimore, a new conven-
tion center complex provides an important anchor for the
downtown commercial area, and complements other housing
and renewal efforts centered around the thriving Baltimore
harbor. The Gateway Center in Newark offers stores,
restaurants and excellent new office space--all convenient
to bus and rail transportation serving not only the
metropolitan area but the entire Eastern Seaboard. Boston's
new Government Center adds vitality to its downtown area,
as do nearby renovations of historic Quincy and Faneuil
Hall Markets.
-12-
Oklahoma City has just developed a long-term growth
and development plan, and made some tough decisions in
the process. It is overhauling its regulatory system to
control growth, and linking this system with economic
incentives and better planned uses of the cities
spending capacity.
In their visits to neighborhoods, members of the
Committee saw additional signs of progress and hope.
In many cities, they visited stable and attractive neigh-
borhoods which have provided vibrant community life,
sometimes for generations, and show little or no signs
of decline. Some of these are stable ethnic neighborhoods
of long standing such as Little Italy in Baltimore, and
some are racially integrated, such as the Garden District
in New Orleans. These are the neighborhoods which must
be preserved and which can be the foundation of future
recovery.
The Committee also visited neighborhoods where
significant revitalization is taking place--not just
upper-income enclaves such as Beacon Hill in Boston and
Bolton Hill in Baltimore. Neighborhoods proving to be
particularly attractive are frequently located near down-
town offices, and near universities, medical complexes,
and other institutions which require a skilled or profes-
-13-
sional work force. Many of these neighborhoods, such as
Stirling Street in Baltimore, Manchester in Pittsburgh,
and the South End in Boston, contain historic or architec-
turally stunning buildings which appeal to young profes-
sionals and other attracted to city living.
The Committee saw signs of hope and tenacity even in
the more troubled neighborhoods where outmigration,
housing abandonment, commercial strip decline, and racial
tensions present an enormous and complex challenge.
In Hartford, for example, thirteen neighborhood
associations have banded together into the Hartford
Neighborhood Coalition in cooperation with the Greater
Hartford Process, Inc., an organization of Hartford's
business leadership. Secretary Richardson met with
the Coalition and heard about efforts to revive
commercial strips and to stabilize neighborhoods, about
cooperative efforts between black and Puerto Rican
businessmen, and about progress toward establishing an
Urban Reinvestment Task Force program serving three
Hartford neighborhoods.
In Baltimore, Secretary Hills met with the Executive
Director and the President of the South East Community
Organization, which is working to encourage homeownership
and neighborhood stabilization in a predominantly white,
-14-
working class community of about 78,000 persons. A
particularly important SECO objective is to improve the
economic base of South East Baltimore, and it has joined
with the East Baltimore Community Cooperation, a black
community organization to form a joint community development
corporation.
The Committee believes that these signs of progress
provide support for the hope that over the longer-term
some economic and demographic trends may be shifting
toward the cities' favor.
For example, as the cost of new housing, gasoline,
and other energy sources goes up, existing housing in
central cities becomes a bargain in terms of basic living
space, quality of construction, and location. A well-
maintained, single-family home can be bought for under
$20,000 in most large, older cities, and a home needing
upgrading can cost much less. The market for these homes
is often weak for a variety of reasons, including concern
for personal safety, and the quality of public schools
and other public services. However, the number of young
adult households without children has increased sharply
in recent years and will continue to increase. Since
1970, such households account for 58 percent of the total
increase in new households. It is this group of households
-15-
which may turn increasingly to urban neighborhoods as their
preferred living environment. Between 1970 and 1973, young
people, ages 20 to 25, made up the largest group of in-
migrants to urban areas. Such a trend could contribute
significantly both to preserving older housing and to
strengthening the urban tax base.
Another potential asset of older cities is the
availability of large tracts of land which are either
vacant or occupied by obsolete facilities such as railroad
yards. This land typically is already served by roads,
sewers, and utilities, and therefore offers good
opportunities for eventual development or redevelopment.
It would be naive to expect instant productive use of this
resource, but its potential value in future decades should
not be dismissed. The rising cost of new infrastructure
and energy may once again give a competitive edge to central
cities for some types of industrial, commercial and
residential development.
Finally, the slowing growth and even population losses
in some urban areas are not entirely a cause for despair.
In the long run, slowed growth or population declines if
accompanied by an increasingly heterogenous urban
population, could decrease demands on the cities for
expensive public services, reduce congestion and improve
the quality of urban life.
-16-
In summary, the Committee found that the problems
of cities and neighborhoods are severe, but that their
prospects are hopeful. The next section of this interim
report will address briefly the role of the Federal
Government in the cities.
- 17 -
III. The Federal Government and the Cities
The Federal Government has been deeply involved
in the shaping of our cities and metropolitan areas.
Federal policies, particularly since World War II,
have greatly contributed to the rapid expansion of
metropolitan boundaries, through construction of the
interstate highway system, and generous tax incentives
which favored the building of new housing and commercial
development rather than conserving the old. Even when
the thrust was toward redeveloping blighted areas of the
cities, the first response was urban renewal: tear down
the slums and replace them with new buildings.
During the 1960's, the older central cities were
being engulfed by problems of continuing deterioration,
middle-income population loss, economic decline, and
profound social stress. The Federal response, was
an ambitious but frenetic outpouring of new Federal
programs, targeted at narrow and specific aspects of
the urban predicament.
Today, an estimated 80 percent of Federal assistance
to State and local governments is now delivered through
categorical grant programs. There are over 1,100 such
programs, administered by over 50 agencies, each with
its own set of administrative guidelines designed to
accomplish specific operational or service responsibilities.
The Committee found there were complex, varying application
-18-
and administrative processes and narrow, restrictive
program guidelines. This morass of conflicting
requirements is more likely to prevent than to assure
effective use of Federal resources at the State or
local level. Many of these programs also by-pass
State and local elected officials, eliminating a
locus of coordination and accountability for success
or failure.
As local leaders, both public and private,
confront their problems, they find themselves in a double
bind. First, they have very limited influence on the tax
and other incentives which are pulling people and jobs
out of their communities; and second, they have limited
management control over a large share of the very
resources intended by Washington to help them.
The Committee found, however, that cities can
begin to attack their problems much more effectively
when substantial Federal assistance is provided on a
flexible basis. Mayors were unanimous in their
enthusiastic support for the General Revenue Sharing
Program, which has helped them maintain vital services
and stave off debilitating tax increases. In Newark,
for example, where 60 percent of the land is occupied
-19-
by tax-exempt government buildings, public housing,
hospitals, transportation facilities, and educational
institutions, the city was able to reduce an extremely
high property tax rate.
Nationally, more than $6 billion a year in General
Revenue Sharing funds have been funneled to over 38,000
units of State and local government through an automatic
formula that frees the recipients of cumbersome application
requirements and administrative expense. This program
combines the efficiency and accountability that comes from
allowing local governments to determine their own priorities,
and respond to their own individual needs.
Mayors and local officials also say their cities
and neighborhoods have benefitted from the increased
flexibility provided by two major block grant programs--
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG),
operated by HUD, and the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA), operated by the Department of Labor.
These programs replaced about 24 categorical programs,
and provided funds for broad purposes on a formula basis
relatively free of onerous Federal requirements.
The CETA program has transferred to local and State
elected officials the resources to develop and implement
a comprehensive program for employment opportunities and
job training for unemployed, economically disadvantaged
-20-
and underemployed persons. CETA consolidated 17 special
purpose programs which had been funded through a bewildering
array of general purpose governments, community action
agencies, labor unions, private corporations and nonprofit
contractors, allowing local elected officials little leverage
for coordinating such programs or using them in combination
with other Federal programs.
Under the Title I CETA job training program, about
$3.5 billion will be spent in FY 1976 and 1977, permitting
445 city, county, and State prime sponsors to serve in
FY 1977 an estimated 1.3 million economically disadvantaged,
unemployed, and underemployed persons. The CETA public
service employment programs (Title II and Title VI) will
provide a total of $2.5 billion to support 310,000
public service jobs by the end of 1976 in areas of
high unemployment.
The Community Development Block Grant Program, signed
into law by President Ford in August of 1974, consolidated
seven categorical programs for community development into
a single block grant. Over $3 billion a year goes to
communities across the country--double the funds provided
under the categorical programs in 1970. Local officials
have wide latitude in setting local priorities and deciding
what kinds of programs they want to fund.
-21-
City officials have also observed a substantial
reduction in red tape in the CDBG program. It has only
about 120 pages of regulations, compared to about 2600
under the categoricals. It requires only one application
each year, compared to an average of 5 per year for cities
previously. Applications average about 40 to 50 pages,
compared to 1400 under the previous programs.
The popularity of CDBG among local officials rests
on its successful use by local governments in creative
neighborhood preservation strategies. For example, the
City of Baltimore is allocating $800,000 from its block
grant to reduce the interest rate on rehabilitation loans,
using a sliding scale of from zero to seven percent,
depending on family income.
Boston and Newark are using block grant funds to make
grants to homeowners who fix up their property. These
grants take the form of a cash rebate for a portion of
the cost of improvement. In Newark's Cleveland Hill
neighborhood, Secretary Hills (HUD) and Secretary Coleman
(DOT) visited a family who are improving their home with
new gutters, porch replacement, a new electrical system,
bathroom renovation, and painting. These improvements
are valued at $7,633; after they are completed, the city
will provide the families with a $2,030 cash rebate.
-22-
Secretaries Hills and Coleman also met with residents of
Newark's Roseville and Ironbound neighborhoods who praised
the program for helping them improve their homes and
communities.
In New Orleans, CDBG funds have been combined with
city funds and general revenue sharing funds to build the
Louis Armstrong Park and Recreation Center which will
complement the adjacent commercial and tourist district.
Mayor Landrieu of New Orleans has also established joint
planning office to administer the CDBG, CETA, and Department
of Commerce economic development programs so that community
development projects can be tied into job training for the
unemployed and strengthening the city's economic base.
Because the Committee recognizes that some communities
have had more difficulty in linking their Federal block
grants, the four agencies with major block grant programs
have begun to assess the constraints to such linkages.
One of the key issues the Committee discussed with
neighborhood groups was whether the Federal government
should require local governments to allocate block grant
funds to the neighborhood level. In the Baltimore and
Hartford neighborhood revitalization efforts described
earlier, city governments did allocate CDBG funds directly
to neighborhood organizations so that neighborhood leaders
and residents could determine their own priorities for
revitalization. Oklahoma City, in particular, seems to
-23-
have been successful at involving its neighborhoods in
planning for the community's growth and development. The
fact that the block grant provides annually to the city a
publicly known amount of flexible funds provides the
opportunity for neighborhood groups to take their case
for support to City Hall.
Reports to HUD indicate this is occurring in many
other cities as well. Since money is necessarily limited
and needs are great, there is not always consensus and
harmony between the neighborhoods and City Hall. Some
neighborhood people would like to see direct or mandated
funding of neighborhood groups by the Federal government.
But the preponderance of opinion is that the block grant
approach is preferable because of its certainty and
flexibility. There is growing recognition that cutting the
pie should be the mayor's job--not a Federal bureaucrat's--
and the mayor who ignores well-organized and motivated
neighborhoods can and should expect retribution at the polls.
Federal grant programs can not in themselves solve
the problems of the cities, local officials emphasized
in discussions with Committee members. Longer-term
economic development is essential, and this involves
the effective combination of both public and private
efforts. A number of Federal initiatives are being
used to achieve such public-private action.
-24-
The programs of the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) have demonstrated a wide variety of approaches to
economic stabilization and job creation in urban areas.
In a number of cities, abandoned, underutilized or blighted
industrial areas have been upgraded to encourage firms to
remain in the city and to attract new firms. Such industrial
areas are often adjacent to residential neighborhoods and
afford residents permanent private sector jobs.
In some cases the location or expansion of firms has
been aided by EDA business development loans and loan
guarantees. EDA industrial redevelopment funds also have
been used to upgrade and replace community infrastructure,
including industrial access roads, building site preparation,
sewer and water lines, streets, sidewalks and street lights.
Another focus of recent Federal action has been the
revitalization of neighborhood commercial strips. A healthy
commercial area not only has a positive impact on the
economy of the neighborhood, but also can serve as a
catalyst for more general neighborhood improvements to
housing and public services. Neighborhood businesses provide
employment opportunities and income for residents; help to
generate a supply of capital to the area; and provide a
convenient place for residents to purchase necessary goods
and services. A program to further this type of neighborhood
commercial revitalization requires a strong local merchants'
association, neighborhood support, working capital and
-25-
rehabilitation assistance to individual businessmen. EDA
is presently carrying out a demonstration program using
technical assistance funds to help neighborhoods develop
local programs which employ EDA business loans and loan
guarantees for such revitalization activites. As part of
this program, the Office of Minority Business Enterprise
is providing technical assistance to help minority
entrepreneurs to form such local business associations
and to develop programs.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is another
Federal agency which is stepping up its support for
commercial and industrial development aimed at revitalizing
neighborhoods. For example, the SBA has taken its Local
Development Company loan program--rarely used in large
cities until recently--and is directing it toward neighborhood-
based economic improvement. SBA Administrator Kobelinski
is currently working with a selected group of target cities
to involve neighborhood organizations, local officials, and
financial institutions in private sector development.
-26-
Another economic development initiative designed
to create more jobs mainly in the private sector, is
a new demonstration program jointly funded by the
Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Housing and Urban
Development. This program will help cities coordinate
the use of community development, economic development,
and employment and training funds, together with strong
private sector involvement and cooperation, to strengthen
local economies. The three Departments have made
demonstration grants which are expected to total
$4.8 million over two years to the following ten cities:
Albuquerque, Baltimore, Bridgeport, Buffalo, Chicago,
Dayton, Kansas City, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.
-27-
Central business district improvement is the
objective of innovative transit projects sponsored by
the Department of Transportation. DOT is funding
transit malls in several cities in which major shopping
streets are closed to auto traffic, and the street space
reserved for pedestrians and shuttle bus systems. Some
of these grant funds are being used for special paving,
lighting and street furniture which supports the mall
concept.
Communities throughout the country are also using
Federally-initiated demonstration programs to help
stimulate and support local efforts to improve and
rehabilitate housing in neighborhoods threatened by
deterioration. The Committee found that the Urban
Reinvestment Task Force has been an effective local
tool for counteracting disinvestment trends in
potentially sound, but endangered neighborhoods. The
Task Force, which is a joint effort by HUD and the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, provides revolving loan
funds, technical assistance and other financial aid to
partnerships of local residents, financial institutions
and local government which have developed promising
strategies to arrest early neighborhood decline. Over
30 cities are now involved in programs sponsored by
the Task Force.
- 28 -
HUD is increasing its support for the Task Force from
$2.5 million in FY 76 to $4.5 million in FY 77, so that
the Task Force's programs can be expanded to a total of
55 cities. Of the cities visited by members of the
Committee, Boston, Cleveland, and Baltimore, as well as
Pittsburgh, whose local innovation served as the national
model, have operating Urban Reinvestment programs. Newark,
New Orleans, and Hartford are commencing programs.
The Urban Homesteading program, administered by HUD,
also helps to revitalize neighborhoods and recapture
deteriorating and abandoned housing stock. Twenty-three
cities selected in a national competition in 1975 are
now using HUD-acquired properties and subsidized
rehabilitation loans in coordinated neighborhood
preservation programs. Urban Homesteading represents
a $50 million Federal/local investment: HUD is awarding
$5 million in rehabilitation loans, and $5 million in
properties to the participating cities, and the cities
are spending about $40 million of their own funds to restore
and recycle selected ailing neighborhoods.
The Committee recognizes that demonstration programs
are small in scale relative to the problems they
address. Yet they can provide models for achieving
substantial progress, and can point the way toward
program changes which will benefit cities and neighbor-
hoods across the nation.
-29-
IV. Defining the Federal Role
The Committee believes that national policy on urban
development and neighborhood revitalization must be based
on certain basic principles concerning the proper role of
the Federal government. We are in agreement on those
basic principles, as well as on a set of preliminary
recommendations for action, and an agenda for future study.
The principles which the Committee believes should
govern the Federal role in urban affairs are as follows:
A. The Federal government should establish, as a
national priority, the preservation of the nation's
existing stock of housing, the restoration of the
vitality of its urban neighborhoods and the promotion
of healthy economic development for its central cities.
The nation has entered a period of scarce resources
and simply cannot continue to absorb either the social
or economic costs of throwing away whole neighborhoods.
-30-
Accordingly, the preservation of our nation's cities and
neighborhoods should be added to other national policy
objectives, such as decent housing, environmental protection,
and economic growth.
Since Federal policy is only one of the factors which
will determine the future of our urban centers, that policy
must envision a partnership with the private sector and with
State and local governments.
The Committee believes that a lasting solution to the
urban crisis cannot rely on massive Federal funds for
temporary public service jobs or to underwrite existing
municipal debt, insulating local governments from the
responsibility to weigh carefully local needs. Rather,
the Committee believes that the Federal funds should be
funneled to help cities build and modernize their capital
infrastructure and in so doing expand jobs for construction
workers, the poor and unemployed as well as to provide new
opportunities for small business, including minority contractors.
B. The Federal government should target Federal
resources to areas of greatest need, recognizing the
disproportionate social and economic burdens borne by
individual communities or classes of citizens.
The Federal government has a continuing responsibility to
back up its policy commitments with financial assistance on a
i
FORO
scale large enough to make an impact. But public funds are
GERALD
limited, and they should be directed to the areas of greatest
need. Generally, formula allocations should replace grantsmanship
-31-
C.
The delivery of Federal assistance to urban
areas should be made more efficient by adhering to
certain management principles.
The delivery of Federal assistance to the cities
should be improved by strengthening the decision-making
roles of general purpose State and local governments.
The present Federal delivery mechanism is frustrating
to public officials at all levels of government and
baffling to citizens at the neighborhood level who are
searching for ways to improve their communities. The
duplicative and restrictive requirements of current Federal
categorical programs diminish both their effectiveness in
meeting local problems and the capacity of State and local
governments to link Federal, local, and private resources
in dealing with the complex problems of urban areas. Based
on its contacts with public officials and neighborhood
groups, the Committee believes that the following principles,
while not universally applicable to all situations or programs,
should generally guide the delivery of Federal assistance.
-32-
1.
Preference for Block Grants
The Committee believes that the chief elected
officials of State and local governments, working with
their citizens, should have more discretion to plan and
manage their own strategies to meet national objectives,
rather han being burdened by Federal dictates often
ill-fitted to their communities.
Many Federal categorical grants should be simplified
and consolidated into block grants which afford greater
flexibility to State and local governments. For most
service and developmental activities, State and local
governments should be able to make decisions on the
specific services to be funded within broad Federal
guidelines as to the purposes and beneficiaries intended
to be served. Block grants should be flexible SO that
the recipients can adapt Federal resources to the needs
and conditions of their communities and can maximize the
linkage of Federal resources and other local, private,
and public resources.
2.
Electoral Accountability and Citizen Participation
Accountability for the use of Federal block grant
funds should be clearly fixed, usually in the local or State
chief elected official. However, those officials should
seek the participation of citizens in the planning and
management of Federal funds. Citizens in affected
-33-
neighborhoods, in particular, should have a voice and the
impact of Federally-funded programs on their neighborhoods
should be carefully considered. In appropriate cases,
neighborhood organizations should play a direct role in
program planning and management.
The result should be an expansion of meaningful
participation in the use of Federal resources, a strengthening
of the State and local political process, and a reduced
ability of narrow special interests to dominate Federal
program decisions.
3.
Preserving Federally Guaranteed Rights
Although block grants are intended to afford
the widest possible local discretion, national policy
requires that the rights and interests of minority citizens
be protected. Therefore, Federal block grant programs
should ensure that the needs of minority gorups are considered
in the allocation of funds and that minority rights are
guaranteed in the management of Federally-funded programs.
-34-
4.
Support for Local Management and Planning Capacity
The Federal government should help to ensure that
local planning and management capacity exists to implement
additional block grant programs. The Committee believes
that present block grant funds are generally being managed
effectively. However, State and local governments may need
further planning and management capability as new block
grant programs are created. The Federal government should
help to build that capability.
5.
Facilitating Program Linkages
The Federal government should increase the
opportunities for State and local governments to use
different Federal programs in a flexible and coordinated
manner. The difficulty of creatively linking the many
existing categorical programs is one of the major problems
of such grants, and block grants must be designed to avoid
similar problems. In some cases, this will mean the
establishment of new cooperative relationships between
States and localities.
Similarly, it is essential that both State and local
recipients of block grants are encouraged to work together
in making program decisions involving areawide problems.
Decisions involving transportation facilities, pollution
control, economic development and housing will have major
regional impacts. The Federal government should design
its programs to encourage consideration of such regional
effects to promote effective intergovernmental cooperation.
-35-
6.
Research and Development
The Federal government should support research
and demonstration efforts in order to identify effective
solutions to urban problems and widely disseminate the
results. Further, Federal research and development
activities, like the programs they support, must be
integrated and coordinated to achieve a broad focus.
-36-
V.
Recommendations
1.
The Committee recommends the following steps
towards the consolidation of existing categorical
programs into block grants
In city after city, Committee members were told
about and saw evidence of the success of the present Federal
block grant programs. For example, community development
block grants, in their first two years, have proven to be
a far more effective means of delivering Federal aid than
the seven narrow categorical programs they replaced. The
Committee recommends building on this demonstrated success
by consolidating other Federal aid programs into functional
block grants. In general, the Committee believes that such
program consolidation will substantially increase the
effectiveness of the Federal funds now being expended.
The following list of possible functional block grant
proposals is intended to be suggestive rather than
definitive--a starting point in giving more control over
public funds to State and local governments and to the
individual taxpayer.
a.
Housing Assistance Block Grants
Several existing housing subsidy programs
could be consolidated into a housing assistance block grant,
providing cities and States with formula-determined
allocations of long-term funding for housing assistance.
Such a consolidation would reduce the complex Federal
regulations and "red tape" that now attend the various
-37 and 38-
Federal housing programs. Responsibility and accountability
for the delivery of housing assistance would be lodged where
it belongs--with local and State chief elected officials.
Mayors could develop their own innovative housing programs
suited to local market conditions and local needs as well as
better coordinate housing assistance with other community
development activities.
b.
Urban Surface Transportation Block Grants
Several current urban highway and transit
assistance programs also could be consolidated into block
grants, allocated on a formula basis to urbanized areas.
These block grants could be available for a broad range of
activities including planning, resurfacing, and rehabilitating
roads; acquiring, constructing, rehabilitating and maintaining
transit facilities; and transit operating subsidies (the
latter category perhaps being limited to some percentage of
an area's allocation each year). Of course, the block grants
would not affect funding for the completion of the Interstate
Highway System or the Rural Highway System.
C. Health Services Block Grants
Because Congress has not yet acted on the
Administration's recent health block grant proposal, the
Committee recommends resubmittal of health services block
grant legislation to the next Congress.
-39-
C.
Education Block Grants
To improve the quality of education in urban
neighborhoods, the Committee recommends resubmitting to the
Congress the Education Block Grant proposed last year which
would consolidate several categorical assistance programs
into a single block grant.
2.
The Committee recommends a comprehensive review
of present Federal aid formulas to determine their impact
on "declining" cities and the States in which they are
located.
For example, the Administration has already
proposed raising the per capita ceiling on general revenue
sharing grants to localities from 145% to 175% of the
State's average per capita amount. This formula revision
would direct more Federal Revenue Sharing funds to a number
of large cities. An additional $30.5 million would go to
the following large cities: Philadelphia ($10.6 million),
Detroit ($8.2 million), Baltimore ($4.4 million), Boston
($4.4 million), St. Louis ($2.9 million).
Similarly, in its coming Report to the Congress, HUD
should consider the extent to which the community development
block grant funding formula recognizes the relative needs
of different cities, particularly older declining cities.
-40-
The Department should recommend changes to the formula based
on this analysis. Among the criteria that might make the
formula a better measure of need are the age of a city's
housing stock and whether it is losing non-poverty population.
Similar changes may be warranted for formulas in other
programs providing funds for physical or economic development.
The extent to which any of these formula revisions
can be accommodated within approximately the same program
funding currently provided should be determined on a
program-by-program basis after further analysis.
-41 -
3.
The Committee recommends a general review of
Federal tax policy with a view to providing greater
incentives for the preservation and rehabilitation of
homes and buildings.
As a general principle, the tax system should not
make maintenance or rehabilitation of existing housing
less attractive than investment in newly constructed
properties. Because the tax system is so complex,
however, the ramifications of this principle may be
difficult to determine. Moreover, tax incentives,
because of their impact on the Federal budget, require
the same scrutiny as new spending programs.
Based on its work so far, the Committee believes
the following specific areas of Federal tax policy hold
the most promise for encouraging the preservation and
revitalization of cities and neighborhoods.
a. The Committee recommends that the tax
provisions governing depreciation be reviewed to determine
their effect on investment in the rehabilitation and
maintenance of existing structures in central cities.
The Committee's preliminary review indicates that
the current rules for calculating depreciation allowances
under the income tax may favor new construction over the
maintenance of existing structures, with negative
consequences for central cities. The desirability of
- 42 -
review is suggested by the following brief summary
of present provisions.
The tax code allows accelerated depreciation on
various property investments. Accelerated depreciation
allows larger tax deductions for depreciation to be
taken in the early life of the investment. The
resulting postponement of tax liability amounts to
an unsecured interest-free loan from the Treasury.
Generally, investors in newly constructed residential
properties may take a faster rate of accelerated
depreciation than second and subsequent purchasers
of existing residential properties. Only straight-
line depreciation (non-accelerated) is allowed to
the purchaser of an existing structure with less than
20 years of remaining useful life. A still greater
difference in tax depreciation treatment exists
between purchasers of newly constructed and existing
non-residential property, with the former allowed to
use accelerated depreciation and the latter only straight-
line depreciation. By altering the owner's cash flow,
these rules affect the timing and location of new
construction, the rate of turnover of ownership, and,
especially, the incentive to maintain existing structures
to prolong their lives. To the extent that tax policy
makes investment in new construction more attractive
-43-
than maintenance or rehabilitation of existing structures,
that policy may exacerbate the decline of central cities
by encouraging businesses and people to locate in newer
structures in outlying areas.
b.
The Committee recommends a detailed study of
tax policies to encourage homeowners to invest in the
preservation and improvement of older housing.
The revitalization of an urban area depends on the
preservation and rehabilitation of its stock of existing
structures. The Committee is particularly concerned
about the older homes in urban neighborhoods owned by
lower and middle income families. Federal, State and
local tax policies can affect significantly private
decisions to invest in the maintenance and rehabilitation
of these structures. The tax laws and their inter-
relationships are complex, but tax policies to encourage
maintenance and renovation of the existing housing stock
deserve further study.
C. The Committee recommends that tax incentives
for business investment in areas of chronically high
unemployment, along the lines already proposed by
President Ford, be explored.
To revitalize our older declining cities, more
jobs must be generated.
- 44 -
Many urban areas, with high unemployment levels, require
new incentives to attract business location and expansion.
Such incentives could be made available through the tax
system, with the provision of more liberal depreciation
deductions for new plant construction, expansion or
rehabilitation in jurisdictions with unemployment rates
consistently above 8 percent. President Ford presented
a similar, but more broadly focused proposal in his
Budget for Fiscal Year 1977. Alternative incentives,
which should be considered include an additional
investment tax credit for business investment in declining
areas. The tax credit could be progressive with respect
to an area's unemployment rate, with higher tax credit
in areas with higher unemployment rates.
-45-
4. The Committee recommends that the public and
private sectors seek new ways to increase employment
opportunities for inner-city youths.
The labor force is now swollen by a disproportionate
number of young adults born during the post World War II
baby boom. In 1974, more than 2.5 million young people
between the ages of 16 and 24, half of all unemployed, were
seeking work and unable to find it. Among black teenagers
the unemployment rate is more than five times the national
average. These young unskilled workers seeking employment
are located disproportionately in our central cities. As
industries providing jobs for unskilled labor have
increasingly deserted the central cities of the North-
central and Northeastern states, the problem of unemployment
in those areas has become even more serious.
As the growth in the labor force tapers off in coming
years, the problem of unemployment among these entry level
workers will diminish. In the interim, new ways should
be developed to mitigate the costs this problem imposes
on our urban centers. The magnitude of federal spending
on employment and training in general and on youth
employment in particular (for example, over $1.2 billion
in CETA programs serving youth) attests to the recognition
this problem is receiving, but several new avenues of experi-
mentation should be explored.
First, the Department of Labor's current demonstration
of the use of relocaton information and assistance as an
-46-
adjunct to job training should be carefully evaluated to
determine its impact on high unemployment areas and
expanded if justified by the results.
Second, consideration should be given to ways of
facilitating the transportation of inner-city residents
to new jobs in the suburbs.
Third, further careful study should be given to
mechanisms, such as Defense Manpower #4, for harnessing
Federal procurement policies to provide jobs in high
unemployment areas.
Finally, a high priority should be given to developing
approaches for encouraging greater private sector participa-
tion in the economic redevelopment of inner-cities. The
recent report of the municipal task force of the Business
Roundtable, representing several of the nation's major
corporations, called for a broader, deeper commitment
by the corporate community to our central cities. From
that commitment should be forged a public-private partner-
ship to revitalize our older urban areas.
5.
The Committee favors a standby program of
countercyclical block grant assistance to urban areas
with high unemployment along the lines of legislation
introduced by Congressman Brown and Senator Griffin.
-47-
The Administration's current economic policies should
continue to reduce unemployment eliminating the need for
countercyclical assistance. Over the past 15 months the
national economy has improved dramatically. Unemployment
is down from 8.9 to 7.8 percent; employment has increased by
3.3 million; the Gross National Product has increased by
$190 billion, or 13 percent; and per capital disposable
personal income is up by almost $500, or 9 percent.
Simultaneously, the rate of inflation has been cut in half.
At the same time, the recovery has been geographically
uneven. While the national unemployment rate has declined,
there are areas where high unemployment rates have not
come down because the overall recovery has not yet fully
taken hold. Unemployment in New York City has remained above
10 percent during the recovery; in the San Francisco-Oakland
area, above 11 percent. In some areas, including Detroit,
Buffalo, and Miami, there has been marked improvement, but
the unemployment rates remain high relative to the rest of
the nation. In many cases, these geographical disparities
have been translated into serious fiscal problems for the
affected cities.
The Committee recommends a standby program of
countercyclical block grant assistance to provide funds
to such troubled cities during future periods of recession.
Congress has already enacted a massive multi-billion
dollar countercyclical public works and public service
employment bill. Despite its cost, however, that
-48-
legislation is an inadequate response to the problem.
This program is not targeted at areas of serious unemployment
and has categorical restrictions which will hamstring local
officials in making efficient use of the available funds.
Moreover, no jobs will be created by the public works program
for several months. The last accelerated public works bill,
passed in 1962, did not have a job creation impact until
late 1964, and disbursements for public works projects funded
under that bill are still ongoing.
In contrast, the flexibility provided to local officials
by a countercyclical block grant would greatly enhance their
capacity to use Federal aid to their communities' best
advantage and to convert those funds into private sector
jobs quickly and efficiently.
A countercyclical block grant bill passed the House
of Representatives in 1976, only to be eliminated in a
conference committee. This bill sponsored by Congressman
Brown and Senator Griffin would have provided an overall
level of assistance on the basis of the national unemployment
rate and allocated that assistance to recipient communities
on the basis of their individual levels of unemployment.
Thus, Federal funds would have been provided when and where
they were most needed. These countercyclical block grant
funds could have been used for any local physical or economic
-49-
development activities, providing private sector jobs and
at the same time improving the long-term economic health
and physical infrastructure of economically troubled
recipient cities.
To avoid cities' exacerbating their economic distress
by firing public employees and cutting public services in
a recession, the Brown-Griffith proposal also allowed a
proportion of each city's funding to be used to maintain
public employment levels, complementing local uses of CETA
Title II and VI funds in maintaining public services.
This limited voluntary use of block grant funds for public
employees' salaries would have provided cities with needed
flexibility during periods of temporarily decreased
revenues, without creating a dependency on Federal aid or
swelled public payrolls.
Although we believe that countercyclical aid will
not be necessary in the near future, a standby
countercyclical block grant program should be available
if another recession begins, rather than again waiting
for Congress to debate the form which assistance should
take until well after the recovery is underway.
6. The Committee recommends that requirements
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act Amendments of 1976 be vigorously
enforced, and that the information generated be system-
atically assessed with a view to eliminating "redlining".
The arbitrary denial of home mortgage and commercial
lending based solely on location has been a serious problem
-50-
in some older urban neighborhoods, but there has been
little evaluation of its scope, impact, or causes. The
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act provides an important first
step in determining the dimensions of this problem. The
data generated by the Act also should provide locally
elected officials with an early warning of threatened
disinvestment, so that timely remedial actions can be taken.
7.
The Committee favors a law permitting
nonjudicial foreclosure on abandoned structures.
One of the frustrating and demoralizing problems of
many urban neighborhoods is the presence of abandoned
buildings which are frequently vandalized and havens for
drug addicts. In many States, lengthy and complex
foreclosure procedures prevent local governments from
getting rid of these blighting structures. The Committee
recommends legislation establishing a nonjudicial
foreclosure procedure allowing city governments to move
promptly to demolish the abandoned buildings.
8. The Committee endorses an expansion of HUD's
Urban Homesteading Demonstration, begun in late 1975,
within currently participating communities and to
additional cities.
The Urban Homesteading Program currently operates
in 23 cities, which have received 900 homes valued at
$5 million from the HUD-owned inventory. The program
-51-
has been extremely successful, both in providing home
ownership opportunities for a limited number of moderate
income Americans and in eliminating the blighting influence
of boarded-up HUD acquired properties. Cities have
developed ambitious plans for the revitalization of
homesteading project neighborhoods involving total
public and private investments of over $40 million and
have shown an impressive ability to develop creative
local variations on the homesteading theme.
- 52 -
VI. The Committee's Future Agenda
The Committee has not, in the time available for
this interim report, dealt fully with many of the issues
and questions raised in its preliminary investigation of
urban and neighborhood problems. The Committee's next
steps will be to appoint task forces to develop further
its interim recommendations and, in addition, to
undertake a more thorough and systematic analysis of
the complex conditions contributing to the urban
predicament.
Our longer-term investigation should focus on the
fundamental causes of urban and neighborhood decline,
and propose a coordinated strategy involving the
Federal, State, local and private sectors. Ideally,
the Committee's study will spark national discussion
on the urban condition, so that the recommendations
emerging from its study will have the advantage of
broad consensus and will be based on deeper understanding
of the problems of our urban centers.
For example, the Committee should assess carefully
the causes and impact of the weakening commercial and
industrial bases of older Eastern and Northern cities.
On the basis of a study of the dynamics of economic
change in these hard-pressed cities, the Committee
should develop a strategy to harness Federal
-53-
resources and encourage private sector action to
reduce unemployment and emeliorate the problems
caused by industrial and commercial relocation.
This strategy would address the problems of obsolescence
of urban industrial plants and the shifts in trans-
portation patterns which have adversely affected
central cities in general and older Northeastern
urban centers in particular. This study would also
have to assess the impact of changing life style
preferences, and the implications of fuel and labor
cost differentials.
Second, the Committee should explore the
complicated inter-relationship of center cities
and their outlying suburbs, including the demographic
trends which have concentrated low-skilled, relatively
immobile and often minority populations in the central
cities, while more affluent households have migrated
outward. It has been charged, for example, that
suburban dwellers often reap employment and cultural
benefits from living near a city, but resist contributing
to its maintenance. The Committee should examine this
hypothesis and consider whether economic and social
burdens and benefits should be more equitably distributed.
Third, the essential vulnerability of cities
-54-
to both cyclical and structural economic change should
be better understood. Because of the socio-economic
make-up of their employment base, many center cities
suffer disproportionately from national economic slumps,
and are less able to adjust to basic changes in their
commercial and industrial bases. The Committee should
consider, therefore, the extent to which the national
costs of urban decline warrant differential Federal
treatment to compensate for these chronic problems, or
to assist such cities in adjusting more fully to changing
economic environments.
Fourth, the Committee should study the causes of
residential neighborhood decline. Individual neighborhoods
are the building blocks of the urban structure and their
decline an integral part of the urban crisis. An aging
housing stock, the burden of property taxation, possible
"redlining" by financial institutions, the loss of
neighborhood schools, the quality of public services and
the accessibility of commercial facilities are among the
factors whose impacts on neighborhood transition should
be addressed. The Committee should evaluate successful
techniques for neighborhood preservation or revitalization,
giving particular attention to the potentially important
role of cohesive neighborhood organizations. The continued
FORD
encouragement of and reliance upon local leadership that is
politically sensitive to neighborhood groups could prove to
be one of the keys to the successful rebuilding of our cities.
-54a-
The Committee is aware of the large body of public
and private research on many of these topics. That
research, however, is too fragmented to be immediately
useful for policy purposes. It also leaves several
important gaps and unanswered questions, which the Committee
believes must be dealt with more systematically before
formulating a comprehensive strategy for urban development
and neighborhood revitalization.
While the immediate fiscal crisis and deterioration
of many older urban areas demand attention, the Committee
believes that the needs and problems of more stable and
even growing urban areas should not be ignored. Virtually
-55-
all local governments have suffered the effect of rising
public expectations and increasing costs for public services.
Perhaps even more significantly, many fast-growing
cities have been unable to adopt realistic growth management
policies to accommodate their new patterns of growth.
Uncontrolled development is already producing inefficient
patterns of service delivery which will burden governments
for decades to come. The costs of environmental degradation
permitted under the pressure of development will be borne
by local taxpayers for generations.
Finally, the diversity of Federal assistance demands
the development of improved linkages among programs which
flow to different levels of government for different specific
purposes but with common objectives.
We wish to repeat our opening observation. When
existing Federal funding is targeted in such a fasion as
to meet the specific problems of given cities by politically
responsive local leaders, we may well find that the tens of
billions of Federal dollars spent each year in the cities
is adequate to the task. All that we can be certain of
now is that the continued uncoordinated spending of the past
must be discontinued.
The Committee members have returned from their visits
to American cities with a much stronger sense of the vitality
of many cities and urban neighborhoods, and with a greater
awareness of both the strengths and the limitations of Federal
-55a-
urban policy. We intend to continue our efforts to improve
Federal policies and programs, so that our cities and their
neighborhoods can become more prosperous and more exciting
places to live.
for
Art's y Dean's comments
Jmc
DRAFT
October 19, 1976
Response by President Ford to the Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
I welcome the report from Secretary Hills and the
President's Commission on Urban Development and Neighbor-
hood Revitalization. This report reflects a realistic,
common sense, practical approach to the urban condition.
elusing,
It is straight talk -- and not empty political promises.
plight of many older
This report clearly shows that the problem of
recults from
American cities today is a combination of complex and
inter-related forces: not enough jobs, too many poor
people, too wereasing much crime, deteriorating housing and property
values, inadequate schools, rising costs, declining public
cross
services, congested traffic and overcrowded transportation,
local
and too often, lack of political leadership.
But
This report shows also that there is hope, confidence
and a will to succeed in American cities.
-.7hat
But what the people of the cities want is individual
opportunity and economic stability -- not a Federal handout.
-That What their leaders want is the chance and the resources
to bring about their own revitalization and growth -- and
not political promises of magic solutions from Washington.
GERALD
metropolitan areas, the i, problems.,I -2- the cities" are, in
Because a anyonty. of deliverame the in
concentrated form, largely there of deview donentic policy
generally. Constitut with
My Administration, from its beginning, has followed
a clear national urban policy: to provide the cities,
revell
are
dantic
the towns, the villages, communities and neighborhoods
policy,
throughout the land with opportunity, flexibility,
incentives and a fair share of Federal resources to
solve their own problems and manage their own growth
and progress. 1 his policy in board on the primple that
the levele 1 government clast to the cities' problems best able are
this
R
To back up these policies, here are some of the
respond.
things this Administration has done and will continue
to do:
1.
General Revenue Sharing. This is the most
important program of Federal assistance to local govern-
ments in American history. Since 1972 we have returned to
cities, counties, towns, communities and states
program
billion dollars to assist the people in meeting public
Las
needs.
already
The General Revenue Sharing extension which I
inventy
signed last week will provide
billion dollars
helped
more for these purposes.
are
area
and
2.
Community Development. The first major legis-
lation I signed as President was the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974. Through this Act we have
GERALD R. FORD
-3-
(?)
provided more than one million new and renovated homes
for American families. My goal is a home for every
American family that wants to own a home and is willing
to work and save for it.
3. Transportation. There must be swift and
convenient transportation within and into our cities
and communities. In the last two years we have provided
billion dollars in Federal funds as our
part in the working partnership with state and local
governments to provide urban transportation.
4. Crime. I am determined to lead a Federal,
state, local and community effort to make the streets
and home of America safe for every man, woman and child.
We must get the career criminals off the streets
and into jails. We can do this with the certain sentences
for Federal crimes I have proposed to Congress as a
model for state and local governments. LMY 0.00 top priority
in the first 100 days of the new term will be to rally
all America behind Federal anti-crime legislation.
FORD & LIBRARY
-4-
5. Jobs. I am dedicated to the principle that
every American who wants a job should have a job.
We have trained
million Americans through
the CETA program and other Federal programs; but we
need to do more. Last January I proposed a job creation
program in high unemployment areas, but Congress failed
to act. I shall propose to the next Congress a program
to provide for young Americans the training and experience
they need to practice a trade or a craft or a practical
business skill. We must put all of America to work.
6. Education. The goal of my Administration is
a quality education for every young American. We need
reforms in Federal and state education procedures to
make certain that teachers can spend more time teaching
instead of filling out government forms. We need
diversity and competition in education. We need to
preserve our non-public schools and to make our public
schools better.
7. Recreation. Our cities are centers for the arts,
culture, creativity, entertainment, recreation.
(Details TK)
and
GERALD FORD
-5-
8.
Leadership. We need good leadership ---
good mayors, good city councilmen, dedicated public
servants who will put principles above politics, whatever
their political party.
Mostey all,
9. Thriving Emary.
Finally, our cities and neighborhoods need most
of all a thriving national economy, a healthy growth in
useful productive jobs in private industry, and control
of inflation.
I will continue my commitment to combat inflation,
to restore an orderly steady growth to the American economy.
A
all
finally, we must recognize that
P
Our cities and their neighborhoods will not flourish
resources of yourent
nor fail because of what we do for them in Washington.
contined
Their success depends on what the people in the cities,
and
and their leaders, do for themselves. They are succeeding
I 'H
and will continue to do so as long as honest and realistic
&
solutions are arrived at locally, and supported nationally.
polve
our
I intend to see that this support is applied with wisdom,
than public
imagination and prudence, but, above all, with a conviction
FREE
Fee
that our cities are irreplaceable resources which shall
never be abandoned.
must he
the major
and is the report way bet to encourage burnees and industry involvement.
FORD & 078870 LIBRAI
for
Art's Dean's comments
JMC
DRAFT
October 19, 1976
Response by President Ford to the Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
I welcome the report from Secretary Hills and the
President's Commission on Urban Development and Neighbor-
hood Revitalization. This report reflects a realistic,
common sense, practical approach to the elusing, urban condition.
It is straight talk -- and not empty political promises.
plight of many older
This report clearly shows that the problem of
results from
American cities today is a combination of complex and
inter-related forces: not enough jobs, too many poor
people, too werearing much crime, deteriorating housing and property
values, inadequate schools, rising costs, declining public
services, congested traffic and overcrowded transportation,
local
and too often, lack of political leadership.
But
This report shows also that there is hope, confidence
and a will to succeed in American cities.
-.7tat
But what the people of the cities want is individual
opportunity and economic stability -- not a Federal handout.
- -That What their leaders want is the chance and the resources
to bring about their own revitalization and growth -- and
not political promises of magic solutions from Washington.
GERALD FORD
metropolition areas, the " problems . -2- the cities" are, in
Because a injury of the in
concentrated form, largely there of anvison donetic policy
generally. Consident with
My Administration, from its beginning, has followed
suill
our
a clear national urban policy: to provide the cities,
dontie
the towns, the villages, communities and neighborhoods
policy,
throughout the land with opportunity, flexibility,
incentives and a fair share of Federal resources to
solve their own problems and manage their own growth
and progress. 1 his policy in board on the principle that
the l evele of government clount to the cities' problems best are
able
this
K
To back up these policies, here are some of the
respond.
things this Administration has done and will continue
to do:
1.
General Revenue Sharing. This is the most
important program of Federal assistance to local govern-
ments in American history. Since 1972 we have returned to
cities, counties, towns, communities and states
thirprogram
billion dollars to assist the people in meeting public
has
needs.
The General Revenue Sharing extension which I
university already
signed last week will provide
billion dollars
helped
more for these purposes.
our
citale,
and
2.
Community Development. The first major legis-
lation I signed as President was the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974. Through this Act we have
ERALD FORD LIBRATO
-3-
(?)
provided more than one million new and renovated homes
for American families. My goal is a home for every
American family that wants to own a home and is willing
to work and save for it.
3. Transportation. There must be swift and
convenient transportation within and into our cities
and communities. In the last two years we have provided
billion dollars in Federal funds as our
part in the working partnership with state and local
governments to provide urban transportation.
4. Crime. I am determined to lead a Federal,
state, local and community effort to make the streets
and home of America safe for every man, woman and child.
We must get the career criminals off the streets
and into jails. We can do this with the certain sentences
for Federal crimes I have proposed to Congress as a
oneof
model for state and local governments. My top priority
in the first 100 days of the new term will be to rally
all America behind Federal anti-crime legislation.
017 GERALD FORD
-4-
5. Jobs. I am dedicated to the principle that
every American who wants a job should have a job.
We have trained
million Americans through
the CETA program and other Federal programs; but we
need to do more. Last January I proposed a job creation
program in high unemployment areas, but Congress failed
to act. I shall propose to the next Congress a program
to provide for young Americans the training and experience
they need to practice a trade or a craft or a practical
business skill. We must put all of America to work.
6. Education. The goal of my Administration is
a quality education for every young American. We need
reforms in Federal and state education procedures to
make certain that teachers can spend more time teaching
instead of filling out government forms. We need
diversity and competition in education. We need to
preserve our non-public schools and to make our public
schools better.
7. Recreation. Our cities are centers for the arts,
culture, creativity, entertainment, recreation.
(Details TK)
and
GERALD FORD
-5-
8.
Leadership. We need good leadership ---
good mayors, good city councilmen, dedicated public
servants who will put principles above politics, whatever
their political party.
9. Thriving Economy.
Marty all,
Finally, our cities and neighborhoods need most
of all a thriving national economy, a healthy growth in
useful productive jobs in private industry, and control
of inflation.
I will continue my commitment to combat inflation,
to restore an orderly steady growth to the American economy.
A
all
finally, we must recognize that
P
Our cities and their neighborhoods will not flourish
continued resourch of
nor fail because of what we do for them in Washington.
Their success depends on what the people in the cities,
and
and their leaders, do for themselves. They are succeeding
it
model
enough
and will continue to do so as long as honest and realistic
&
solutions are arrived at locally, and supported nationally.
polve
I intend to see that this support is applied with wisdom,
our
utom public
imagination and prudence, but, above all, with a conviction
that our cities are irreplaceable resources which shall
THE
700
never be abandoned.
must be
Peter
major
to everwage and industry involvement.
GERALD FORD
1/2 s
way
buiness
DRAFT
October 19, 1976
Response by President Ford to the Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
I welcome the report from Secretary Hills and the
President's Commission on Urban Development and Neighbor-
hood Revitalization. This report reflects a realistic,
common sense, practical approach to the urban condition.
It is straight talk -- and not empty political promises.
This report clearly shows that the problem of
American cities today is a combination of complex and
inter-related forces: not enough jobs, too many poor
people, too much crime, deteriorating housing and property
values, inadequate schools, rising costs, declining public
services, congested traffic and overcrowded transportation,
and too often, lack of political leadership.
This report shows also that there is hope, confidence
and a will to succeed in American cities.
But what the people of the cities want is individual
opportunity and economic stability -- not a Federal handout.
What their leaders want is the chance and the resources
to bring about their own revitalization and growth -- and
not political promises of magic solutions from Washington.
-2-
My Administration, from its beginning, has followed
a clear national urban policy: to provide the cities,
the towns, the villages, communities and neighborhoods
throughout the land with opportunity, flexibility,
incentives and a fair share of Federal resources to
solve their own problems and manage their own growth
and progress.
To back up these policies, here are some of the
things this Administration has done and will continue
to do:
1.
General Revenue Sharing. This is the most
important program of Federal assistance to local govern-
ments in American history. Since 1972 we have returned to
cities, counties, towns, communities and states
billion dollars to assist the people in meeting public
needs. The General Revenue Sharing extension which I
signed last week will provide
billion dollars
more for these purposes.
2.
Community Development. The first major legis-
lation I signed as President was the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974. Through this Act we have
-3-
(?)
provided more than one million new and renovated homes
for American families. My goal is a home for every
American family that wants to own a home and is willing
to work and save for it.
3.
Transportation. There must be swift and
convenient transportation within and into our cities
and communities. In the last two years we have provided
billion dollars in Federal funds as our
part in the working partnership with state and local
governments to provide urban transportation.
4. Crime. I am determined to lead a Federal,
state, local and community effort to make the streets
and home of America safe for every man, woman and child.
We must get the career criminals off the streets
and into jails. We can do this with the certain sentences
for Federal crimes I have proposed to Congress as a
model for state and local governments. My top priority
in the first 100 days of the new term will be to rally
all America behind Federal anti-crime legislation.
-4- -
5. Jobs. I am dedicated to the principle that
every American who wants a job should have a job.
We have trained
million Americans through
the CETA program and other Federal programs; but we
need to do more. Last January I proposed a job creation
program in high unemployment areas, but Congress failed
to act. I shall propose to the next Congress a program
to provide for young Americans the training and experience
they need to practice a trade or a craft or a practical
business skill. We must put all of America to work.
6. Education. The goal of my Administration is
a quality education for every young American. We need
reforms in Federal and state education procedures to
make certain that teachers can spend more time teaching
instead of filling out government forms. We need
diversity and competition in education. We need to
preserve our non-public schools and to make our public
schools better.
7. Recreation. Our cities are centers for the arts,
culture, creativity, entertainment, recreation.
(Details TK)
-5-
8.
Leadership. We need good leadership --
good mayors, good city councilmen, dedicated public
servants who will put principles above politics, whatever
their political party.
Finally, our cities and neighborhoods need most
of all a thriving national economy, a healthy growth in
useful productive jobs in private industry, and control
of inflation.
I will continue my commitment to combat inflation,
to restore an orderly steady growth to the American economy.
Our cities and their neighborhoods will not flourish
nor fail because of what we do for them in Washington.
Their success depends on what the people in the cities,
and their leaders, do for themselves. They are succeeding
and will continue to do SO as long as honest and realistic
solutions are arrived at locally, and supported nationally.
I intend to see that this support is applied with wisdom,
imagination and prudence, but, above all, with a conviction
that our cities are irreplaceable resources which shall
never be abandoned.
DRAFT
10/19/76
7:30 p.m.
Response by President Ford to the Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
I welcome the report from Secretary Hills and the President's
Commission on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization.
THis report re l/fects a realistic, common sense, practical approach
to the urban condition. It is straight talk -- and not empty,
elusive, political promises.
This report clearly shows that the plight of many older
American cities today results from a combination of complex and
inter-related forces: not enough jobs; too many poor people;
crime and the fear of crime; deteriorating housing and property
values; inadequate schools; rising costs; declining public
services; congested traffic; and overcrowded mass transportation;
and, too often, lack of local political leadership.
But this report also shows:
---
That there is hope, confidence, and a will to
suceed in American cities.
--
That what the people of the cities want is individual
opportunity and economic stability -- not a Federal
handout.
--
That what their leaders want is the chance and the
resources to bring about their own revitalization and
growth -- and not political promises of magic
solutions from Washington.
2
My Administration, from its beginning, has followed a
clear national urban policy: to provide the cities and their
with
and the
and
neighborhoods throughout the land with opportunity A flexibility
incentives and a fair share of Federal resources to solve their
own problems and manage their own growth and progress. This
policy is based on the prinic that the best government is
that government closest tothe people.
To carry out this policy, here are some of the things this
Administration has done and will continue to do:
1. General Revenue Sharing. This is the most important
program of Federal assistance to local governments in American
history. Since 1972 we have returned to cities, counties,
towns, communities and states
billion dollars to
assist the people in meeting public needs. This program has
already immensely helped our cities, and the General Revenue
Sharing extension which I signed last week will provide
billion dollars more for these purposes.
2. Community Development. The first major legislation
I signed as President was the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974. Through this Act we have provided more than one
million new and renovated homes for American families. My
goal is a home for every American family that wants to own a
home and is willing to work and save for it. To reach that
goal, I will continue economic policies that hold inflation
down, reduce interest rates, and make more funds available
for home mortgages. In addition, I will recommend changes to
3
reduce down payments and monthly payments on lower and middle
price houses.
3. Transportation. There must be swift and convenient
transportation within and into our cities and communities.
In the last two years we have provided
billion
dollars in Federal funds as our part in the working partner-
ship with State and local governments to provide urban trans-
portation.
4. Crime. I am determined to lead a Federal, State,
local and community effort to make the streets and home of America
safe for every man, woman and child. We must get the career
criminals off the streets and into jails. We can do this with
the certain sentences for Federal crimes I have proposed to
Congress as a model for State and local governments. One of
my top priorities in the first 100 days of the new term will
be to rally all America behind Federal anticrime legislation.
5. Jobs. I am dedicated to the prinicple that every
American who wants a job should have a job. We have trained
million Americans through the CETA Program and other
Federal programs; but we need to do more. Last January I pro-
posed a job creation program in high unemployment areas, but
Congress failed to act. I shall propose to the next Congress
a program to provide for young Americans the training and
experience they need to practice a trade or a craft or a
practical business skill. We must put all of America to work.
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
JIM LYNN
BILL SEIDMAN
JIM CAVANAUGH
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
JIM CANNON HilDwern
SUBJECT:
Interim Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Development
and Neighborhood Revitalization.
The attached report reflects the revisions agreed upon in
Sunday's meeting with the President. Also attached is an
executive summary.
Your concurrence and/or recommendations on the material
would be appreciated by c.o.b. this evening, so that final
typing can be effected for tomorrow's release.
OWB Hozah
Attachments
FORD & LIBRARY