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
4526385
label
Land Executives Association, Burlingame, CA, November 19, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526385
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Land Executives Association, Burlingame, CA, November 19, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Housing
Legislation
Revenue sharing
Urban policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526385
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-11-30
month
11
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-11-01
month
11
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
6c986b0e858e75a5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D32, folder "Land Executives Association,
Burlingame, CA, November 19, 1971" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary
and Speech File 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. The Council 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
istribution Full
Hallines Mail a.m. 4:30p 11/18/71 11/17/71 Maffice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON FRIDAY, P.S.T.
November 19, 1971
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Land Executives Associa-
tion at Burlingame, Calif.
First let's take a reading on the outlook for housing legislation in the
92nd Congress.
For a variety of reasons, there will be no major housing bill this year. Of
that I am quite sure.
However, major housing legislation will head the agenda of the House Banking
and Currency Committee next year and the shape of it is beginning to take form.
It is too early to spell out any specifics but it now appears that the bill
will include some form of urban community development special revenue sharing,
consolidation and simplification of existing housing programs and law, creation
of a bureau which would set standards for building construction and related
activities, a counseling service to provide the home owner or renter of subsidized
housing with guidance in home and household maintenance, and possibly a system of
housing allowances made available directly to the home buyer in place of the
present system of subsidies to builders and banks.
Since the theme of this seminar is "New Directions for City Survival, "
I would like to focus particularly on urban community development special revenue
sharing. Now, that's a mouthful, and I'd like to tell you exactly what it is and
why I and many others in the Congress believe it will be a tremendous help in
solving city problems.
We now have a system of categorical grants in aid which has grown like Topsy
over the years.
As Federal urban development programs have grown, local counterpart
bureaucracies have popped up, many of them operating outside the control of elected
local officials. This has led to a fragmentation of local effort. It has made it
difficult for local governments to focus in proper priority sequence on the problems
needing the most attention and money. At the same time, local efforts have become
entangled in the delays and distortions that result from submitting applications
for Federal aid.
What would be different about Urban Community Development Special Revenue
Sharing?
(more)
Digitized from Box D32 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
In place of separate streams of Federal money for urban renewal, Model
Cities, water and sewer facilities, and rehabilitation, cities would get a single
grant to be used for general purpose community development.
This doesn't mean an end to urban renewal. Local officials could keep right
on funding urban renewal projects with some or all of the Federal Urban Community
Development money they receive. But they would do their own planning, and they
would not have to run to a Federal bureaucrat for an o.k. Neither would they have
to dig up so-called local matching money in order to launch a particular project.
How they mix and match projects and money would be their own business except for
reporting in advance how they plan to use their Federal funds and reporting at the
end of the year how they spent the money.
It is expected that this new method of urban development funding would
provide cities with $2 billion in its first full year of operation.
Eighty per cent of the appropriated urban community development special
revenue sharing funds would be divided among the 247 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSAs). The remaining 20 per cent would be distributed by a
new Secretary of Community Development.
At this point I should mention that I expect the House Government Operations
Committee to approve a Federal reorganization bill which will create a new Depart-
ment of Community Development administering three major programs urban and rural
development, community transportation and housing --plus the Federal insurance
programs.
To get back to the distribution of funds under urban community development
special revenue sharing, let me assure you that no community will get any less
Federal aid than they receive now under the categorical aid programs and many will
get more. The formula for distributing the funds to the SMSAs and the major communi-
ties within each SMSA would take into account population, overcrowding, the condition
of housing units, and the number of families with incomes under the poverty line.
Cities could use community development special revenue sharing funds to
acquire, clear and renew blighted areas, to construct public works such as water and
sewer facilities, to build streets and malls, to enforce building codes in deterio-
rating areas, to rehabilitate residential properties, to carry out Model Cities
supplemental projects, to fund demolition projects, and to assist those displaced
by city programs.
Local officials would decide how much to spend and on what. The bureaucrats'
hold on City Hall would be broken. There would, of course, be a firm Federal ban
on racial discrimination in the use of special revenue sharing funds.
I see Community Development Special Revenue Sharing as a precise and direct
solution for the problems now plaguing our system of urban aid. It will give local
officials badly needed flexibility in the use of Federal funds and put the responsi-
bility for solving local problems right where it belongs, on the local office holder.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON FRIDAY, P.S.T.--
November 19, 1971
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Land Executives Associa-
tion at Burlingame, Calif.
First let's take a reading on the outlook for housing legislation in the
92nd Congress.
For a variety of reasons, there will be no major housing bill this year. Of
that I am quite sure.
However, major housing legislation will head the agenda of the House Banking
and Currency Committee next year and the shape of it is beginning to take form.
It is too early to spell out any specifics but it now appears that the bill
will include some form of urban community development special revenue sharing,
consolidation and simplification of existing housing programs and law, creation
of a bureau which would set standards for building construction and related
activities, a counseling service to provide the home owner or renter of subsidized
housing with guidance in home and household maintenance, and possibly a system of
housing allowances made available directly to the home buyer in place of the
present system of subsidies to builders and banks.
Since the theme of this seminar is "New Directions for City Survival, "
I would like to focus particularly on urban community development special revenue
sharing. Now, that's a mouthful, and I'd like to tell you exactly what it is and
why I and many others in the Congress believe it will be a tremendous help in
solving city problems.
We now have a system of categorical grants in aid which has grown like Topsy
over the years.
As Federal urban development programs have grown, local counterpart
bureaucracies have popped up, many of them operating outside the control of elected
local officials. This has led to a fragmentation of local effort. It has made it
difficult for local governments to focus in proper priority sequence on the problems
needing the most attention and money. At the same time, local efforts have become
entangled in the delays and distortions that result from submitting applications
for Federal aid.
What would be different about Urban Community Development Special Revenue
Sharing?
(more)
In place of separate streams of Federal money for urban renewal, Model
Cities, water and sewer facilities, and rehabilitation, cities would get a single
grant to be used for general purpose community development.
This doesn't mean an end to urban renewal. Local officials could keep right
on funding urban renewal projects with some or all of the Federal Urban Community
Development money they receive. But they would do their own planning, and they
would not have to run to a Federal bureaucrat for an o.k. Neither would they have
to dig up so-called local matching money in order to launch a particular project.
How they mix and match projects and money would be their own business except for
reporting in advance how they plan to use their Federal funds and reporting at the
end of the year how they spent the money.
It is expected that this new method of urban development funding would
provide cities with $2 billion in its first full year of operation.
Eighty per cent of the appropriated urban community development special
revenue sharing funds would be divided among the 247 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSAs). The remaining 20 per cent would be distributed by a
new Secretary of Community Development.
At this point I should mention that I expect the House Government Operations
Committee to approve a Federal reorganization bill which will create a new Depart-
ment of Community Development administering three major programs urban and rural
development, community transportation and housing --plus the Federal insurance
programs.
To get back to the distribution of funds under urban community development
special revenue sharing, let me assure you that no community will get any less
Federal aid than they receive now under the categorical aid programs and many will
get more. The formula for distributing the funds to the SMSAs and the major communi-
ties within each SMSA would take into account population, overcrowding, the condition
of housing units, and the number of families with incomes under the poverty line.
Cities could use community development special revenue sharing funds to
acquire, clear and renew blighted areas, to construct public works such as water and
sewer facilities, to build streets and malls, to enforce building codes in deterio-
rating areas, to rehabilitate residential properties, to carry out Model Cities
supplemental projects, to fund demolition projects, and to assist those displaced
by city programs.
Local officials would decide how much to spend and on what. The bureaucrats'
hold on City Hall would be broken. There would, of course, be a firm Federal ban
on racial discrimination in the use of special revenue sharing funds.
I see Community Development Special Revenue Sharing as a precise and direct
solution for the problems now plaguing our system of urban aid. It will give local
officials badly needed flexibility in the use of Federal funds and put the responsi-
bility for solving local problems right where it belongs, on the local office holder.