Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "16989415",
    "label": "Urban Policy (4)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16989415"
}

{
    "id": "16989415",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16989415",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Urban Policy (4)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16989415",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Finance",
        "Urban policy"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16989415.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16989415.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16989415.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16989415",
    "naId": 16989415,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-07-31",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-07-01",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16989415.pdf",
    "mediaId": "fb9ddb7ce7c8a9bc",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 39, folder \"Urban Policy (4)\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 39 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 4, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nART QUERN\nSTEVE McCONAHEY\nART FLETCHER\nPAT DELANEY\nALLEN MOORE\nFROM:\nLYNN Urban MAY Policy a\nSUBJECT:\nAttached is a draft paper reflecting HUD's response to\nour urban policy initiative. I though it would be\nuseful to us to review it to assess the direction of\nthe thinking in the Department on the issue.\nI expect the final version of the paper and a meeting\nwith Secretary Hills and her staff to crystallize within\nten days to two weeks.\n1) Act:\n2) hym:\nHUD's usponse is disapporting.\nattachment\nmisponsime to the guestions,\nIn general it is\nbureaucrator in approach\nvague, writey and\nAnd fundamental grestoring\nFORD is LIBRARY OFRALD\nurban problems an our where\nabout The posons for\nhits Diruss\nthe\nMarch 19, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR CARLA HILLS\nFROM:\nLYNN MAY 151\nSUBJECT:\nUrban Policy\nJim Cannon has requested the Domestic Council to examine a\nnumber of related issues affecting the Administration's\nurban policy. He is aware that you have taken a major\ninterest in this subject and have discussed it at length\nwith other Cabinet members.\nIn light of your concern and responsibilities for community\ndevelopment policy, Jim believes it would be useful for you\nand key members of your staff, like Dave Meeker and Charles\nOrlebeke, to meet with Domestic Council staff members to\ndiscuss issues.\nTopics for discussion in this meeting would likely revolve\naround the following questions:\n1.\nWhat position should the Administration take in\nregard to the problems of the cities?\n2.\nWhat process do we have for dealing with specific\ncalls for help from Mayors of cities in fiscal\ntrouble?\n3. How can we best approach the development of a\nlong-term policy toward the nation's cities?\nSome suggested initial steps for resolving these questions\ninvolve the following:\n1.\nAssessing a survey of exactly which cities are, or\nsoon will be, in trouble.\n2.\nEstablishing and maintaining a regular (not crisis\noriented) channel of communication with urban\ncenters).\n3.\nDevelopment of a \"tool\" or \"yardstick\" to assist\nin measuring the fiscal conditions of different\ncities.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-2-\n4.\nReview Federal programs specifically designed to\nhelp the cities.\nWe realize, of course, that HUD has a long history of involve-\nment in many of these subjects. What we would like to\nobtain from our initial meeting is your assessment of the\nissues and of possible options the Administration might\nadopt to resolve them, particularly in the realm of Federal,\nState and local coordination. We would also like a general\ndescription of the state of the analytical art for assessing\nurban fiscal problems.\nDEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\nU.S. DEPARTMENT * UNERAN OF HOUSING * AND\nEXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY\nMay 3, 1976\nTo :\nLynn May, Domestic Council\nFrom: William C. Kelly, Jr.\nwek\nAs I promised on Friday, attached is a\ndraft paper on urban policy. Because it\nis a draft, I would appreciate your not\ncirculating it outside the Domestic Council.\nDave Meeker will be in touch with you next\nweek.\nCC:\nCarla A. Hills\nJohn B. Rhinelander\nDavid O. Meeker\nDRAFT\nAN URBAN POLICY FOR CENTRAL CITIES\nI.\nThe Request\nThe Domestic Council in April requested a meeting to discuss urban\npolicy and city problems.\nII. The Problem\n1.\nThe Department's real and perceived urban development role is\nweaker than envisioned in the statutory base.\nAt present, major urban responsibilities are scattered in\npiecemeal fashion throughout the Executive Branch. With a\ntrend beginning in 1968, Presidential and Congressional actions\nhave greatly strengthened the urban role of other Federal\nagencies concerning the central cities.\nThat trend continues, with large city mayors, state and\nlocal officials, national public interest groups and key\nCongressional leaders increasingly looking to the urban\ndevelopment responsibilities assigned\n2\nelsewhere. The present attempt by the House Public Works Committee\nto assign a broad urban economic development role to the Department of\nCommerce's Economic Development Administration (HR 9398) is a prime\nexample. This type of action stands to undercut the Department and,\nif successful, would be a step backward toward program proliferation\nand fragmentation. I have discussed with Sol Mosher a strategy to link\nthis bill to the Community Development Block Grant Program, and my staff\nis working on specific suggestions. General options would include a\nPresidential veto or a re-working of the proposal to link Federal urban\ndevelopment funds, with the Department administering the program in\nconjunction with Commerce, through a combined Economic-Community\nDevelopment Application.\nGiven the limited discretionary nature of the Community Development\nBlock Grant Program and the funding limitations of the Comprehensive\nPlanning Program, the Department is perceived by its constituents as\nhaving lost its urban development primacy.\nDepartmental initiatives to improve Federal interagency and intergovern-\nmental coordination through agreements among agencies sharing the same\nconstituency are not apparent, since they are not focused on specific\nurban development objectives such as the leveling off and re-alignment\nof functions in non-viable, large central cities.\nDespite these interagency agreements and the Department's strong past\nrecord in pioneering the Integrated Grant Administration program leading\nto Joint Funding Simplification Act and other coordination improvements,\nstate and local officials and public interest groups are increasingly\nturning to other Federal agencies. A current effort (S. 3075) to vest\nbroader areawide coordination and areawide growth management responsi-\nFORD\nbilities in the Office of Management and Budget serves as an example.\nGERALD\n3\nAgain, this type of action undercuts the Department's urban development\nrole.\nRecent Congressional hearings focused heavily on the Department's\nhousing role and research agenda. No new major urban development or\ngrowth development challenges were raised. This tends to further weaken\nthe Department's real and perceived role in these vital areas.\nOn the assumption that a strong Department urban development role is of\nreal benefit to the nation and the administration, major initiatives\nbecome necessary to regain lost ground and capture additional strength.\nNecessarily, these initiatives must be undertaken promptly, but need not\nnecessarily involve large amounts of funding. Needed funds could be\nprovided out of existing or anticipated resources through a shifting of\npriorities. For example, \"701\" funding, which may be increased by the\nCongress, could be applied for that purpose.\nI. The Opportunity\nThe Department could seek to regain its primacy as the communications focal point\nwith state and local governments.\nThe Department is the most logical Federal agency to provide both the\nstructure and the process in responding to the Domestic Council's stated\nconcern for \"establishing and maintaining a regular channel for communi-\ncation with urban centers\".\nOurs is the only agency with a broad statutory/executive order mandate\nto promote, facilitate and strengthen interagency and intergovernmental\nrelations supportive of urban development through the statutory authority\nof Director of Urban Program Coordination. And the Department is the\nonly agency, through interagency agreements and \"701\" funds, now pro-\nviding the common Federal linchpin with state and local government.\nFORD is LIBRARY DERALD\n4\nPolicy Development and Research and CPD \"701\" already are major focal\npoints for research and innovative projects dealing with urban develop-\nment, including city fiscal issues and growth and development issues.\nThe Department also serves as a major focal point for the general\nnational, state and local public interest groups and specialized\ninterest groups, such as the Council of State Community Affairs Agencies,\non matters related to urban development.\nThe Department could easily initiate a series of general and specific\nefforts to improve and strengthen the administration's communications\nties with state and local governments. These efforts could focus upon\nregular communications and respond-to-crisis situations. A new inter-\ngovernmental communications system that builds upon the Federal Regional\nCouncils could be developed with the Department as the lead agency.\nSpecial attention could be given to the different types of fiscal\nproblems.\nThe Department could seek to firmly establish its primacy for dealing\nwith balanced national growth and development, including various forms\nof large-scale urban development.\nIt is impossible to effectively deal with the central city fiscal issues\noutside the framework of growth and development affecting urban counties,\nmetropolitan regions and national economic regions. For example, hard\ndata supports the contention that when central cities constitute a major\nproportion of the metropolitan regions, such as Jacksonville with 91%,\nthey are likely to be more viable than cities which constitute a small\nproportion, as in the case of San Francisco with 40%.\nThe short- and long-term success of the Department's housing, community\ndevelopment, urban design and other missions will hinge on how growth\nALD 1817 ALD R. FORD\n5\nand development balance is handled by cities, counties and states.\nAnd the success of the Federal government in coping with present and\nprojected growth and development -- much of which will escalate the\neconomic base and fiscal crisis now facing large central cities with a\ntradition of providing broad, high-level and high-cost social services -\nwill hinge on how cities, counties and states handle basic changes in\nthe economic-community functions of the central cities. The Minnesota\nMetropolitan Fiscal Disparity Act is an example of an effort to deal with\nthe central city revenue/expenditure imbalance within the context of\nareawide growth and development.\nNew communities, planned unit development, larger-than-usual developments,\nland-use management and other forms of economic/community development\ndrawing support from the Department either contribute to central city\neconomic/community gains, such as in Minneapolis and Houston, or losses,\nas in the case of Washington, D.C. It is impossible to ignore the impact\nof the Department and other Federal policies and programs on central\ncities.\nThe Department could assume a new leadership role in helping to shape\ndifferential Federal policies and programs within the context of balanced\nNational Growth and Development to cope with different types of central\ncities such as housekeeping-physical orientation or full public delivery-\nsocial orientation in different National Economic Regions, states and\nmetropolitan regions. Pin-pointed 'efforts could focus on large central\ncities without a viable economic base or a grossly distorted base linked\nto public-private sector service employment. Broader efforts could focus\non central cities with a viable economic base that can be conserved,\nexpanded and balanced through public economic-community development\nactions and reasonable policies backed by sound fiscal management.\nFORD is LIBRARY 078839\n6\n[V. The Department could seek to fill the gap that exists for dealing with\nNational Economic Regions and Interstate Growth and Development Corridors\nToday, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Department of Commerce\nand the Water Resources Commission are the major focal points for\nFederal attempts to cope with certain dimensions of National Regions and\nInterstate Corridors.\nCongress remains the dominant force in support of \"National Regionalism\".\nSubstantive amendments to the Public Works and Economic Development Act\nand the Appalachian Regional Commission place broader growth and develop-\nment responsibilities on Title V Regional Action Commissions and the\nAppalachian Regional Commission. The 1975 amendments also make the\nGovernors directly accountable for planning and implementation.\nDespite funding reductions, it appears that the concept of \"National\nRegionalism\" is gaining ground. Broad recognition is being given to the\nimpact that public-private investments have had, and are having, on states\nand large central cities in the Northeast and Midwest. Basic economic-\npopulation redistributions are taking place which contribute to growth and\ndevelopment imbalances.\nNew initiatives are being taken by public-private leaders at the state\nand local levels to understand and cope with the phenomenon of \"National\nRegionalism\" and its consequences on the provision and financing of\npublic services in \"loser\", states, metropolitan regions, urban counties\nand large central cities.\nThe Academy for Contemporary Problems has prepared an unsolicited urban\ndevelopment leadership proposal seeking Department \"701\" and Economic\nDevelopment Administration planning assistance funding to help launch a\nnew Industrial Midwest Development Institute to deal with the pro-\nFORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD\nfound economic and demographic shifts now altering the fiscal and social\nconditions of many of the older industrial cities\n\" Once established,\n7\nthe Institute would be governed by a board made up of state, federal\nand private leaders, with federal officials drawn from the appropriate\nFederal Regional Councils. A similar effort is being developed by a\nnortheast university consortia to focus on that Region's difficulties\nand growing imbalances, The Rockly Mountain Federation of States is\nexamining the desirability of initiating a similar effort through the\nFederation of a new eleven-state vehicle.\nThe Department is the most logical Federal agency to respond to, and\nactively encourage, these types of initiatives. Positive response\nwould strengthen the Department's capability to help answer the Domestic\nCouncil's question: .\"How can we best approach the development of a long-\nterm policy toward the nation's cities?\" Furthermore, a positive re-\nsponse would strengthen the administration's position in the midwest and\nnortheast by demonstrating concern over imbalances. Concern backed by\npin-pointed efforts can help counter charges that the administration has\nturned its back on states and central cities in the so-called \"Steel and\nRetail Belts\" in favor of the \"Sun Belt\".\nThe Department could easily initiate a series of responsive efforts.\nA major Department link with the Academy for Contemporary Problems on\nthis issue would help strengthen communication and intergovernmental\nrelations with state and local governments through the Academy's\nsponsors - the major national public interest groups. Similar links\ncould be developed in the Northeast and Mountain Plains Regions.\nResearch data from a recent fiscal study indicates that an 11% increase\nin private service industry employment is required to generate the\npublic revenue lost from one manufacturing job and a 61% increase in\nBERALD FORD VERARY\npublic sector service employment is required to offset such a loss. The\nlong-term impact on large central cities in turn will impact on state\n8\nand Federal growth and development policies. Obviously, strategies\nsuch as public employment programs have both long- and short-term\ndisadvantages.\nV. The Department Could Seek to Fill the Gap that Exists for Dealing with\nInterstate Metropolitan Regions and Less than National Interstate\nGrowth and Development Corridors\nToday, the Department and the Economic Development Administration are the\nmajor focals point for certain economic-community development aspects\nof Metropolitan Regions involving two or more states and interstate\ncorridors cutting through and extending beyond some of these Regions\nand other contiguous Regions and substate districts within each state\nsuch as the Inter- and Intrastate Cincinnati Growth and Development\nCorridor.\nThe Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency\nand other Federal agencies also have a major impact on growth and\ndevelopment within these Regions and corridors.\nAs with National Economic Regions and National Interstate Corridors\nas in the Northeast which cut through and extend beyond two or more\nentire states, the growing economic-community imbalances associated\nwith Interstate Metropolitan Regions and interstate corridors are\nhaving a significant impact on the viability of larger central cities.\nTo date, most interstate compact commissions, regional councils of\ngovernments and similar vehicles receiving CPD \"701\" funds have not\nfocused work elements on balanced growth and development and on the\nshort- and long-term impact regional growth and development on the\neconomic-community functions of large central cities. Few of these\nvehicles have formally recognized the importance of dealing with\ninterstate corridors.\nDERALD FORD LIBRARY\n9\nNew initiatives by a few states recognize the importance of interstate\ngrowth and development (such as Ohio-Indiana-Kentucky). A few interstate\nvehicles, like Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council have\nalso taken some initiatives. The Southeast Federal Regional Council's\nleading effort to understand and deal with interstate and intrastate\n\"border straddler\" problems having a negative impact on programs and\ncontiguous regional agencies has not moved into Phase II due to other\npriorities.\nThe Department is the most logical Federal agency to respond to, and\nactively encourage, new initiatives aimed at understanding and adjusting\nto interstate growth and development events. Pin-pointed efforts could\nfocus on \"troubled\" Regions such as the New York Metropolitan Region and\nRegions trying to avoid growth and development imbalances such as the\nIowa-Nebraska-South Dakota Interstate Region, centered in Sioux City, Iowa.\nPositive response would strengthen the Department's and the Administration's\nposition in dealing with central city issues and the problem of working\nout coordinated actions between and among states and between and among\nFederal Regional Councils with overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities,\nas in Sioux City.\nVI. The Department Could Seek to Strengthen its Relationships with Regional\nCouncils and Similar Vehicles with Service Areas Encompassing Large\nCentral Cities\nThe Department has always been the economic-community source of Federal\nleadership calling for the solution of many fundamental problems through\nstate and local efforts keyed to the metropolitan region encompassing\nthe large central city.\nThe Metropolitan Council of Minneapolis and the Denver Regional\nCouncil of Governments offer examples of how councils can help large\ncentral cities retain their economic-community vitality. The\nFORD : LIBRARY GERALD\n10\nMetropolitan Council's accomplishments includ- critical support-building\nfor the Metropolitan Fiscal Disparity Act. The Denver Council was the\ncatalyst behind the effort to create a Regional Service Authority to\nlink planning with implementation. Narrowly defeated, this effort may\nbe advanced again.\nThe Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments is an illustration of\nhow councils can improve communications between Federal-state-local\nofficials and public-private leaders. The Department successfully\ncarried out problem-solving forums with this and other councils in 1972.\nThe Department has also helped finance \"Forums on Federalism\" sponsored\nby various local organizations in conjunction with councils and other\n\"701\" recipients. Several Forums focused specifically on large central\ncity economic-fiscal problems, as was the case in St. Louis.\nThe Department could easily and profitably initiate a series of new\nefforts designed to attack large central city problems through communi-\ncations and open dialogue using regional councils and similar vehicles.\nIf carefully implemented these positive efforts could appropriately turn\nthe first level of central city problem solving back toward the regions\nand states. This direction is totally consistent with New Federalism and\ncould improve the administration's position with regard to city issues,\nwithout commiting the administration to massive new Federal interdictions\nand bigger Federal government. Given the political makeup of regional\ncouncils and similar vehicles, the administration's overall positions\nwill find support and the administration can effectively counter many of\nthe charges that it is not sensitive or responsive to central city\nissues.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n11\nA series of regional conferences pin-pointed on \"troubled\" or \"endangered\"\ncentral cities such as Detroit, St. Louis and Atlanta could be care-\nfully staged, with regional councils serving as the delivery vehicles.\nEach conference could be handled with Department staff doing much of\nthe work funded by a small \"701\" set-aside. Specific topics could\ninclude full state assumption of selected governmental functions such\nas health and education and the probable impact on central city,\nsuburban, state and even Federal public finance.\nThe Department could initiate several experimental projects to see if\nthe successful South Texas Cultural Basin Commission approach can be\ntransferred to certain \"troubled\" metropolitan regions like New York\nand St. Louis. This approach brings state, including the governor;\nFederal, through the Federal Regional Council; local officials, in-\ncluding chairmen of regional councils of government; and private leaders\ntogether as Commission members to focus on short- and long-term actions\nto deal with systemic economic-community problems. The future of each\ncity is viewed within a broader State Economic Region encompassing five\nseparate substate districts served by five regional councils. If\ntransferrable, this model could help state-local and Federal governments\nmove forward toward a long-term policy for dealing with central city\nissues.\nStrong positive response would strengthen the Department and administration's\nposition on dealing with central city issues and help meet the three\nobjectives of concern to the Domestic Council. This approach could\ngive the administration a positive position that shows concern and\nunderstanding without unnecessary `political and fiscal commitments and\nwhich promise future solutions without unnecessary delivery. It could\nBRALD BIT R. FORD\n12\nyield a major piece of a new process for dealing with calls for help\nfrom Mayors by turning first-level problem-solving back from the Federal\ngovernment to regions and states. Furthermore, it could contribute to\nthe development of a long term policy toward the future of central cities\nwith and without viable economic bases.\nVII. The Department Could Seek to Strengthen the Role of States in Dealing with\nBalanced Growth and Development Issues Impacting Upon Large Central\nCities by using these methods:\nEncourage states to undertake new applied research and problem-solving\nefforts keyed on the negative-positive aspects of growth and development\nwithin National Economic Regions, National Interstate Corridors, Interstate\nMetropolitan Regions, Interstate Corridors and Metropolitan Regions. Pin-\npointed focus could be placed on large central city issues.\nWork closely with the Council of State Community Affairs Agencies and\nsimilar organizations to strengthen the capability and capacity of\ndifferent states for dealing with the economic-community problems of\ndifferent types of central cities. Particular focus could be on new\nstate-Federal program-funding links with the Community Development\nBlock Grant Program through greater use of the Joint Funding Simplifi-\ncation Act and other mechanisms.\nInitiate a series of efforts to get states more involved with central\ncities to prevent new economic-fiscal crises and with urban counties as\ntrue forms of areawide government for dealing with growth and development,\nfor example, through the Community Development Block Grant Program and\nother Department programs focused on large-scale development and financing\nFORD\nof selective public services.\nLIORARY\nRespond to new and current state initiatives. Concerning balanced growth\nand development, the National Governor's Conference offered a 1974-1975\nproposal to Congress calling for a new system of multi-state and interstate\n13\nvehicles to deal with growth and development issues. New emphasis on\nthe State role would strengthen the Department's capability to fully\nexecute Federal interagency agreements and stimulate new uses of Joint\nFunding focused on a few targeted central cities. This approach would\nalso strengthen the Administration's position in showing concern for\nurban counties and aging suburban communities, as well as for large\ncentral cities.\nVIII. The Department Could Seek to Increase the Community Development Block Grant\nProgram's Impact on Solving Large Central City Problems\nThe Block Grant Program is largely keyed to meeting the physical needs\nof cities. Detroit Mayor Coleman Young recently complained before the\nJoint Economic Committee that, \"Community development won't help me run\na police department or a sanitation department.\" To a great extent this\nstatement is true. A reassumption of Department leadership in support\nof Joint Funding could help bring the funding priorities of other Federal\nagencies more into line with city needs and match Federal social service-\nhuman resources programs up with the Block Grant Program. This approach\nwould greatly strengthen the Department and the administration's\nimmediate ability to deal with calls for help from Mayors.\nThe Department could: Seek to gain the responsibility for administering\nJoint Funding Projects through lead agency designation or formal transfer.\nEngage in new initiatives with the Departments of Commerce, Labor and\nH.E.W. to develop a new package of services and funds targeted on\n\"troubled\" and \"endangered\" central cities. It is almost impossible\nto cope with the basic changes that have occured, and still are\noccurring, in the economic-community functions of large central cities\nwithout these Departments cooperating in a consistent and mutually-\nreinforcing set of policies.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n14\nProvide further leadership and advancing proposals calling for Federal\nfinancial formulae, governing statutes and regulations to give greater\nweight to poverty, unemployment and loss of economic base factors. A\nnew twist would be to give weight to the increase of central city depen-\ndency on public-private service industry jobs. This would be a realistic\nand dramatic way to Federally recognize basic changes in the economic-\ncommunity functions of large central cities.\nIX. The Department Could Strengthen its Research Role and Seek to Become the\nPrimary Federal Focal Point for Applied Research Targeted on Central City\nIssues\nBuilding upon current and on-going efforts, the Department could\nimmediately pull together the Federal and non-Federal research that\nexists on central city problems. Once catalogued and analyzed, the\nDepartment could issue self-help documents to guide local and state\nofficials understanding and dealing with central city issues.\nApply research findings scattered throughout the Federal government and\nthe nation to help improve communications on large central-city issues\nwithin the Federal government, between governmental levels and between\npublic and private leaders.\nUse proven research methods for determining immediate and impending fiscal\ncrises and largely irreversible basic changes in economic-community\nfunctions to help states and local officials initiate self-help actions.\nPut into practice proven public economic-community adjustment and\nrealignment methods to help state and local officials and private\nleaders develop realistic self-help and short- and long-range action\nprograms to level down certain public services, transfer the responsi-\nbility for certain functions to higher governmental levels and shift\nthe cost of certain services to users through public user charges or\nprivate delivery.\nGEBRED FORD (TBRAR)\n15\nInitiate a series of efforts to focus attention on hard research data\nand findings dealing with the cause-effect of central city fiscal problems.\nAssuming primacy for Federally sponsored applied central city solutions,\nthe Department could strengthen its working relationships with the Advisory\nCommission on Intergovernmental Relations, the National Science Founda-\ntion and other agencies funding both theoretical and applied research\non central city economic-fiscal and service delivery issues. Furthermore,\nthe Department could assume primacy for serving as the Federal clearinghouse\nto ensure that all relevant research on central city issues is made known\nto potential users and that it is distilled into usable form for appli-\ncation through Federal and non-Federal sponsored projects.\nConvene a non-political conference of leading public fiscal experts to\ndiscuss the state of the analytical art and directions the Federal\ngovernment should consider taking to improve research methods and data.\nServe as the convenor to-bring together public-private experts to\nshare research findings and discuss ways to deal with specific types of\npublic finance problems such as retirement and pension funding, municipal\ncredit, collective/bargaining, wage/fringe roll backs or roll outs to\nhigher governmental levels or suburban communities, and the negative-\npositive fiscal impact of state-Federal assumptions and \"piggy-back\"\ncommuter-sales type taxes. Additional research is needed on the inelasticity\nof large central city tax bases and how equity problems might be addressed\nthrough income transfer approaches., Competitive research is also needed\non service employee productivity in the public-private sectors.\nImmediately initiate situational analysis targeted on selective central\ncities so that differential Federal strategies and pin-pointed selective\nFORD\nFederal interdiction actions can be proposed for dealing with various\nLIBRARY\ntypes of large central cities in different National Economic Regions,\nstates and metropolitan regions.\nLonger range balanced national growth and development research projects\ncould be initiated to determine the possible impact that basic economic-\npopulation shifts in favor of National Economic Regions and states, such\nas Texas, without a tradition of providing broad, high level and high-\ncost social services-human resources programs largely financed out of\nstate-local revenues might have on a levelling down of services-programs\nin \"loser\" National Economic Regions and states like Northeast-New York,\nMidwest-Michigan and on a levelling down or up of Federal funding support.\nPositive response would strengthen the Department and show the adminis-\ntration's willingness to remain open-minded to long-term solutions.\nImportantly, positive response would communicate to most citizens, the vast\nmajority of public officials and private leaders that the situation is\nvery complex, was long developing and will require a long term \"work-\nout\". Broadcast communication would help the Administration counter\nshort term, high-cost, politically expedient proposals calling for more\npublic service jobs and so forth. Many Presidential contenders are\nattracting excellent press and may be gaining independent voter support\nbecause the Administration's positions are not reaching broad groups of\ntaxpayers in terms they understand.\nX. Further Action\nMembers of the CPD staff are now preparing a more detailed response to\nthe points raised in the Council's memorandum. I would like to submit\na strategy paper, with options, and a proposed agenda for discussion\nupon my return the week of May 10. This paper will identify actions\nthat the Department can take with or through the Council, and steps that\ncan be taken under existing assignments.\nFORD is LIBRARY 03RALD\nGlenda Allen-no answer\nSally Blue-run away\nRobert Brown-wants to quit\nJess Brown-had court hearing\ntoday\nCITIES IN\nRichard Casey-unknown\nKeith Cline-truant, mother\nsaid he left for school.\nSheila Davis-sink overflow.\nHad to wait for plumber.\nTom Duffey-out painting house\nall week-parents' permission.\nSCHOOL\nSusie Gerholt-pregnancy\nillness.\nJanice Grantham-missed ride\nDavid Harris-death in family\n(grandfather)\nNancy Hodap-ride left with-\nout her-no money for bus.\nSandra Holland-glasses\nbroken-mother called.\nAndrew Hunter-called\nmother; thought Andrew\nwas in school.\nMark Gasser-Job Corps.\nSandy Johnson-false labor\npains.\nAndrew Jones-overslept till 12.\nPaulette Jones-fell down the\nsteps.\nLeroy Kennard-went to\nFlorida; sister had baby.\nVic Klinker-refuses to come\nto school; going to quit in a\ncouple of weeks.\nDan Lauhorn-had appt. at\nhealth clinic.\nThomas Mason-in juvenile\ncourt.\nThe names of these youth are\nnot real. The reasons they\nstayed home from school are.\nThis list represents a collage of\nhuman need which floods our\nschools each day. Teachers have\nneither the time, resources and\nin many cases the skills, to\nsolve these problems.\nEducators and supportive\nstaff (social workers, probation\nofficers, youth workers, drug\nworkers, and other related\ndisciplines) must work together\nin meaningful concert. There is\nno other plausible road to\nquality urban education.\nCities in School represents a\nnational model that demon-\nstrates a new way to meet the\nBERALD FORD ELERA\ncomprehensive needs of youth.\nTHE NEED\nMost teenagers entering 59/76 high\nTHE PLAN\nFAMILY UNIT\nTHE RESULTS\nUrban Policy\nInstead of bringing the teenagers to the\n40 students\nIf the excitement and commitment of\nschools would have trouble reading this\ncity services\nbring the city services to\n1 teacher\nthe staff involved in the model projects\nsentence. Every year, for several years,\nthe teenagers. Bring the city to school.\nwere the only yardstick\nthe\nCities\nin\nthe reading brehension level in urban\nBring trained professionals from health,\nSTAFF\nSchool plan is a great success.\nschdols as getting lower and lower\nwelfare, probation, housing and parks &\n1 family facilitator (to make things work)\nThat's a good sign. But it will be the\nrecause most urban high school teen-\nrecreation into the school system. Make\n1 program coordinator\nstudents who will be the measure of the\nagers have trouble.\nthose people part of the educational pro-\n(vocational/recreation)\nprogram.\nThey may be hungry, or beat up or\ncess. Free the teachers for teaching.\n1 social service person\nThrough a grant from the Lilly En-\nanxious or pregnant suffering from\nThe point is to make more effective use\n(welfare/social worker/probation)\ndowment, the University of St. Louis is\nsome terrible combination of fears and\nof the money, people and skills already\n1 supportive educator (for remediation)\nnow conducting a thorough evaluation\npsychic or whatever. But chances\nprovided by city budgets.\nMake sure that there is a race and sex\nof the program in Indianapolis\ncosts,\nare, they have prouble.\nGive the teenager somebody to trust\ndistribution so every student has a variety\nreading levels, reduced numbers on pro-\nAnd students in trouble cause trouble.\nand relate to; who can meet his/her\nof staff to relate to.\nbation, etc.\nTeachers, instead of teaching, keep\npressing needs.\nProvide intensive tutoring during and\nThe Cities in School concept does not\norder.\" The toughest oblem in urban\nGive urban high schools around the\nafter class.\nguarantee miraculous improvement. It is\neducation is not the quality of teaching.\ncountry an easily copied prototype that\nVisit students' homes to gain the sup-\nan attempt to coordinate the delivery of\nIt is the social, economic, and personal\nworks!\nport of parents.\nyouth services around the youth through\nproblems of the students\nfoblems\nHere's an outline of the model.\nOrganize field trips. Provide remedial\na school setting.\nthat prevent the students from learning\nDivide the students into a family unit.\nreading programs and intensive math\nCities in School is community resources\nand problems that the schools and\nThere are many social agencies in\nclasses. Begin to use community resources.\nworking in concert with educational in-\nthe teachers cannot help.\nthe city often scattered all over\nShow the students that somebody cares.\nstitutions. It is a real hope that the lives\nIf we could human problems,\ntown. The child has to leave home\nor school to seek service from each\nSolve the personal problems to solve the\nof our urban youth can be serviced; that\nthe teachers could solve the learning\nagency separately. Much time is\nlearning problems.\ntheir educational, cultural and conceptual\nproblems.\nwasted traveling, and looking for\nMost important\nraise reading and\ndeficiencies can be helped\nthat\nthe\nCities are rich with ssionals, and\neach individual child.\nmath levels. Help students become re-\nyouth who are the future of urban com-\nbudgets and programs for 15-19-year-\nThe teenager who needs help\nhas to seek out each one sepa-\nsponsible creative citizens that contribute\nmunities will be educated, responsible,\nolds. Well-staffed departments of hous-\nrately. And each department has to\nto society instead of welfare and/or\ncontributing citizens.\ning, social work, welfare, health, proba-\nfind each child separately.\nIt's a classic management prob-\ncriminal burdens of society.\ntion, and parks & recreation exist now.\nlem\nhow do you team up the ex-\nBut they are rarely coordinated with each\nisting resources of the city, to make\nother.\nthe education of its future citizens\npossible?\nIt's a classic management prob-\nlem\nhow to you team up the ex-\nisting resources of the city, to make\nthe education of its future citizens\npossible?\nOne answer is being developed in Indianapolis, Atlanta and New York.\nIf the social agencies sent\npersonnel to the schools\nthey'd discover the people\nthey need to see, and help.\nStudents would have addi-\ntional adults (to relate to, to\nlook up to) who cared about\nthem and teachers would be\nfree to teach.\nCannon. fyi\nDie\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJACK MARSH\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nFor\nSUBJECT:\nCarter Position on Urban Problems\nIt is our understanding that the Mayors meeting\nin Milwaukee expect Jimmy Carter on Tuesday,\nJune 29, to endorse an \"urban development bank\"\nconcept to provide major Federal assistance (possibly\n$1 billion) for cities in a way that is designed to\nstimulate investment by the private sector.\nFew details are expected, but the Democratic Mayors\ndo anticipate that Carter will indicate his position\nby endorsing the attached resolution.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nvilot Program for Neighborhood\nMayor John H. Poelker\nPreservation and Rehabilitation\nSt. Louis\nMayor Steve Cappiello\nHoboken\nWHEREAS, the preservation of existing neighborhoods and the\nrehabilitation of its housing stock, existing commercial facilities and\nbasic infrastructure is part and parcel to any effort to revitalize our\nnation's central cities and a national objective of highest urgency and\nconcern; and\nWHEREAS, the achievement of such a vast undertaking requires the\nexecution of a complex process which includes a strong, direct federal-\nlocal relationship, a partnership of public and private sector and a\ncity's understanding of both the community development strategy as well\nas the interacting of economic and social factors enhancing residents'\nconfidence, of which neither the programmatic tools nor monetary resource\npresently exist; and\nWHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors adopted policy at\nthe 43rd Annual Conference in Boston calling upon the Administration to\ncreate a substantial pilot program for neighborhood regeneration in at\nleast 100 cities; and\nWHEREAS, the Administration has yet to pursue such. an activity and\nthe forthcoming congressional debate on the reauthorization of the Housin\nCommunity Development Act of 1974 provides an excellent forum for further\npresentation, discussion and adoption,\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the U. S. Conference of Mayors\nreaffirms and strengthens the previously adopted policy urging both the\nAdministration and Congress to actively pursue the development and\ncreation of a new and substantial $1 billion demonstration/pilot program\nto foster neighborhood regeneration and rehabilitation; and\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that federal and all program resources be\ndirectly linked in a systematic way to the community development block\ngrant multi-year planning and implementation activities including the\nhousing assistance plans; and\n-\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as an intricate part of this program,\nCongress and the Administration should examine and devise new and inno-\nvative federal financing techniques similar to such concepts as the\nNational Urban Development Bank or the National Cities Corporation with\nthe objective of stimulating and providing incentives for the involvement\nof the private sector.\nLISAARY GERALD FORD\n- 85 -\nJuly 13,\nUrban 1970 86 Policy\nTO:\nThe Vice President\nFROM:\nWilliam J. Ronan\nSUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN AID 10 URBAN BLIGHT AND\nCHRONIC UNITELOYMENT\nBackground\nThe major older cities of the nation -- New York,\nPhiladelphia, Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Newark, St. Louis, etc. --\nsuffer from deterioration of their ratable values, outward migration\nof industry -- manufacturing, warehousing and distribution\nparticularly -- and high uneuployment end large welfare costs.\nAny long term aolution that will save these cities requires\ntheir economic revitalization -- and this means a sizeable portion of\nindustry and jobs must be attracted back to the cities.\nOne significant element in this effort 1s Federal policy.\nFederal policy heretofore has encouraged urban decentralization --\nFHA and Veterans housing, the Federal Highway Program, Federal\nelectrification programs, etc. If the cities are to be reinvigorated\nFederal policy-must encourage it. This will take several major\npolicy changes:\n1. Federal setting of maximum welfare as well as minimm welfare\nstandards.\n2. Federal housing programs to reattract the middle class to\nthe cities,\n3. Federal transportation policies to encourage public\ntransportation In cities.\n4. Federal energy policies to make energy costs in cities more\ncompetitive.\n0\n5. Federal assistance for industrial development and redevelopment\nin cities.\nIndustrial Development\n1. The large cities in trouble willonot come out of their\ndifficulties unless they can attract industry and employment.\nGEBALD FORD LIBRARA\n2. These cities have vast areas of slums, depopulated \"bombed-\nout\" sections, which are producing little revenue and\nconstitute not only \"eyesores\" but are areas of degradation,\ncrime and delinquency, and these \"rotten areas\" have spread to\nto adjacent areas. The properties in some of these areas\nhave already been acquired by municipalities through tax\ndelinquencies.\n3. A Federal program to help acquisition of certain of these\nareas for industrial redevelopment would be a major assist\nto them. Many of these areas could be made available for\nindustrial usage, if the land costs are written down, if they\nare cleared, and if the basics of utilities and transportation\nare provided.\nFinancing: $2 Billion in Federal Funds\nBecause of the present stringencies on cities, Federal assistance\nwould be a desirable bolt (?) as an incentive and for actual\nprogression of such a program.\nFederal assistance should take two, possibly three, forms:\n1. Federal funds to assist state and local government in\nacquiring necessary additional land, clearing sites, and\nin writing down land values. Municipalities would be\nallowed to use land they now own to match Federal funds.\n2. Modification of the so-called \"Ribicoff Amendment\" that\ncurrently limits the amount of tax-exempt revenue bond\nfinancing for industrial development. This modification\nshould be designed to permit larger amounts of tax-exempt\nindustrial revenue financing for urban areas that have had\nconsistently high unemployment.\n3. Consideration should be given in connection with these\nareas for industrial development in communities with\nconsistently high unemployment rates above certain levels\nto:\na. the additional stimulus of a modification of the\ncorporate income tax, and\nb. a five-year tax write-off for capital outlays.\nThe matching financial assistance and the liberalized \"Ribicoff\"\nand the possible modification of the corporate tax incentives would\nbe limited to:\n1. Urban areas where there has been a rate of unemployment of\nmore than 9% for at least two years.\n2. Urban areas that have lost manufacturing, assemblying,\npackaging or warehousing jobs aggregating more than 27%\nof their employment in such fields.\n3. Urban areas where states have established public benefit\ncorporations for industrial development that:\nGERALD FORD VIBRARY\n- 3 -\na. Have power to issue revenue bonds, acquire and\ndevelop properties.\nb. Have a continuing life and consistency of\nmanagement.\nC. Have power to lease and sell by mortgage such\nindustrial properties.\n4. And would be limited to urban areas wherein such\ndevelopments are given real property tax protections.\nInvestment\nA federal investment of $2 billion to spur the growth of private\nsector employment in these urban areas of consistently high\nunemployment will be more than compensated for in terms of\nreduced welfare, crime and unemployment costs, and will\nbe returned to the Federal treasury in the form of additional\ntax revenues.\nSuch a Presidential initiative might well be a turning point\nin the long steady deterioration of our urban centers and the\nstart of their revitalization.\nThe basic result would have a lasting and invigorating\neffect on our entire economy which will benefit all citizens.\nSingapore's experience is an interesting prototype:\nIn 1964, Singapore, with a population of three million\nChinese, had a per capita GNP of $300. Singapore's leaders\ndecided to make Singapore a haven for international\ncorporations -- believing that the only way to prevent\nCommunist takeover was to advance economic and social\nprograms for the people of Singapore.\nAs a step in carrying out this objective, Singapore\nbuilt a 8800-acre industrial park, in which over 620 corporations\nemploying nearly 70,000 workers have located in the short space\nof twelve years, and the per capita GNP has gone up from\n$300 in 1964 to $2000 today-- the third highest in Asia. The\nprogram has been so successful that they are now expanding to\n14,000 acres and expect to attract over 1,000 factories.\nThis development shows what can be accomplished by imaginative\ngovernmental policy to attract industry. I believe the basic\nconcept is adaptable to major city redevelopment here in the\nUnited States.\nA brochure of Singapore's \"Jurong Town Corporation\" is\nattached.\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY"
}