.MTgwNA.MTgwNA

/-lo v~ 1nj rl.c.-so,J-.r"~ C Of"l"1 ittc. c.. CITY OF .ATLANT.A October 31, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman Housing Resources Committee MALCOLM D. JONES Housing Coord inator MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr . Chief Administrative Officer Ple ase see attached copy (Encl. 1) of letter to Planning Director , dated September 25, 1969, (which is self explanatory) requesting assistance in providing material for inclusion in next revision of the Status Report on Atlanta's Low and Moderate Incom e Housing program. Also see attached copy of reply from the Planning Director , dated October 9, 1969 , (Encl. 2). Note that the reply from the Planning Director proposes certain studies related to housing to be initiated by the Planning D epartment. The desirability of these studies is not questioned. However he calls upon me for assistance in preparation of the studies, but does not agree to provide any of the information requested for the Housing Resources Committee for updating the Low and Moderate Income Housing Status Report. About two years ago, when I first requested a Statistical Clerk to keep up the Housing Status Report, I was inform ed by the Administrative Assistant that a new position of Planner for housing had just been authorized the Planning Department and that therefore the Housing Resourc e s Committee should obtain any needed research and statistical data from the Planajng Department. Consequently, I called upon the Planning D epartment then for similar information to that again requested in the attached letter (two years later) . As yet none of the information requested has been provided . I do not consider this deliberate , or unwillingness to cooperate, but rather a natu ral consequence of another Department being so overworked and preoccupied with numerous details on too many matters, to provide attention and detailed information to another office , for which that Department is not directly responsible. I predict that the situation will not improve materially . �I Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. October 31 , 1969 Page Two The information requested for HRC is essential to meaningful revisions of the Housing Status Report. In order for the City and its officials to have any concept of progress being made in the Low and Moderate Income Housing program , it is essential tha t a Housing Sta tus report be maintained a nd constantly r e vised by someone. N o office in the City, othe r tha n the Housing Resour ce s Committee, currently h a s this information. On the other hand, it is physically impossible for me (alone) to obtain the information needed, affect the appropriate u pdating of the report a nd a t the sam e time a ccomplish other e ss e ntial coordina ting and administra tive duties for w hich I a m r es ponsible. This i s w hy, f o r over t w o year s now, I h a v e rep eat e dly r e quest e d a ssista nc e of a Sta ti s ti cal Cle rk in thi s field . Mr. W. W. Gates, who as FHA oriented Housing Consultant to HRC one d ay per w eek, wa s very helpful. How e ve r, after w or king f or o v er a year w ith no p ay, he h as dis c ontinu e d ser v ing. In th e a b sence of othe r ass i s t a n ce , l ast s umme r I r e qu est e d a nd obtaine d the se r v ic e s of an Urban Corps Intern, prima rily to w ork on upda ting the Hous ing Sta tus R e p ort. However, he was m o r e inter ested in c hang i ng th e s y ste m tha n in obtaining t he n ee d ed i n f orma tio n . Conse qu entl y , m uc h e s s e ntial i nfo rm a t i o n perta i ni n g t o r espec t ive h ou s i ng pr oj ects , such as b e dro om c ompositi on, m o nthl y r e nta l s or purchas e payment s, u tility cost s a n d e s tim a te d time of c ompl etion of many pr oj e cts h a s not yet be e n o bta i n e d. An a dditiona l e f for t t h i s fall to obta i n a nothe r Urban C or p s Intern to a ssist in t his fi e l d h a s not b een su c c e ssful. W h en I wa s initia lly a pproa che d by the Admini s tr a tive As s i s t a nt w ith v iew to t aking o ve r t h e functions o f E xe c u ti v e Di re c t or o f the Citizens Adv i s or y Committee for U r b a n R e new a l , in additi on t o my o t her d uti e s , I wa s inf o r m e d tha t I would get an as s i sta nt. L as t J uly, du ring Mr. Land e rs ' l as t mont h of duty, h e r e iterated t h a t h e p l anne d to provide m e with a n as si s t a nt who , could not o n ly b e c h arge d w ith m o nito ring a nd revisin g the c onstantly chan ging Status Report o n L ow and Moderat e Income Housing, but who w ould a l s o be capabl e of assisti ng i n c o or dinating other hou sing m atters, s uch as p rom o t i ng hou sing w i th builders, re p resenting m e in c o nfe r e n ce s a nd eve n on oc c a s i ons, po ss ibly c o n ducting meet ings o n housing matters . Re cent difficulties in adoption of a satisfactory workable Hou sing Code Enforcement Plan, preparation of the Breakthrough appli cation, housing in M odel Cities and proposed housing improvement s in other NDP areas, appears to justify additional coor dinating efforts in the hous i ng field. In addition, such assistant should b e capable and trai ned to take over my duties as Administrative Coordinator for Housing when I retire. �Mr . Dan E. Sweat, Jr. October 31 , 1969 Page Three . Consequently, I for an assistant. recommend that provision be made in the 1970 Budget Respectfully, ~ -;p .:./2.c . c:--~- Malcolm D. Jones Administrative Coordinator for Housing MDJ/mc Ends: cc: Copy letter dated Sept. 25, 1969 Copy reply dated October 9, 1969 Mr. Cecil A. Alexander Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr, �., .. CITY OF .ATL.i-u\JT.L~ September 25, 1969 CJ:r1IY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 HL' 522-:4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR CECIL A: ALEXANDER, Chairman Housing Resources Committee MALCOLM 0. JONES Housing .Coordinator Mr. Collier B. Gladin Planning Director City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Collier: Enclosed is a complete revLswn., . date d · Au~u_st: 15'; . 1969, {as of July 31, 1969) of Sta tus Report on the Low and Mod erate Income.. Housing program in three sections: Summary, lnventnry and·. Index . . As you will note, the Inventory· o f project-s. ha S: m any blank spaces, which were intended for insertion of certain. data , . which .the. limited fac ilities and staff of this office have precluded. obtaining_the: desi red information nece ssa ry to complete the fo rms . The principal. item-s_- needed are bedroom composition, monthly rentals or paymentS', estimate_d _or-actual time for . completion and name and telephone numher oL local c ontacts;,. from whom specific additional information may- be obtaine d ~. In as much as you h ave proposed that an-. eiem-ent: oLyour D epartment could serve as the staff research arm. oE the Housing Re..sour.c .e s - Committee, I am therefore submitting to you herewith. the attac he.ci'.copy. of:this l ate st Low and Moderate Incom e Housing Status Report-~ . prepare d ·. by. this- office, with request that your D epartment complete the blanks - on·_th e: cur.r:e nt Inventory dated August 15, 1969, make clianges. in. ·s tatus oL developm ent ·of existing proj ec ts and a dd such additional proj ects: ta the Invento r y as~ ar.e appropriate, through October 31, 1969, and return thiS' repo:rt:t-o-me. by: November 10, 1969, showing the additional inforrnation,. in o rd·e r· that t-hLs- oific .e .1nay prepare a complete revised report as of Novemb e-r· 15,. 196-9',, shawing : comparative figures with those contained in the S econd Annual Report: of November: 15, 1968 . This information is essential and will be very.mucfrappr.eciated~. E~cl. I �0 September 25, 1969 Mr. Collier B. Gladin Page Two Sally Pickett and Helen M ·e yers o[· your.· office:- are- anxious -to ·. see -.the : current enclosed report and to extract cer.tain-. information· from it ·. for :your .files.:' 0 Since.r.ely; , M'.a:lculrn. II.. Jones HOllsing. Coor.dinator: MDJ/mc Encl: cc: Revision of complete Status Repor.t on . the. Low and Moderate Income Housing Prog_r..am·. dated August 15,. 1969 in. three sections .. Mr. Cecil A. Alexander Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. �CITY OF .ATLANT.A CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director October 9, 1969 Mr. Malcolm Jones Housing Coordinator City of Atlanta Mayor's Office City Hall Dear Mr. Jones: This is to acknowledge your letter of September 25, 1969. Our Department has taken an active interest in housing in the past few years and will continue to do so in the ful'ure in view of new Workable Program requirements concerning housing. During the ne_x t few months, we will attempt to accomplish the following work tasks: 1. _2. To establish clear standards by which to judge whether new housing serves low, moderate or upper-income families. I think.we all agree that there ore problems with the standards we are presently using; however, we are wel I aware that the standards were hastily estobl ished. After establishing the above standards, we will attempt to evaluate all housing permitted within the past 2 1/2 years and to provide you with an analysis of this information. We will be attempting to establish a format which will meet HUD Workable Program guidelines for future reporting and also serve City heads. 3. After completion of items one and two, our staff will begin the design of a city- wide housing study, �Mr. Malcolm Jones October 9, 1969 Page 2 . Mrs. Sally Pickett is the Planning Department sl"aff member who has primary responsibility for these tasks. I am sure she will be asking for your assistance and I hope we can count on you for help in this work. Sincerely, ~~ Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG:ds r �.... . September 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman . Housing Resources Committee Attached is copy of the controversial proposed 1970-11 Housing Code Enforcement plan, less map, (Encl. 1) prepared by the Planning Department and approved by the P &: D Committee August 30, after considerable questioning by all members of the Committee, except the Chairman, Rodney Cook. This plan was adopted September 2 by the Board of Aldermen on a 8-7 roll call vote , but was d e layed by Alderman Millican for reconsideration at the next meeting of the Board of Aldermen, Septembe1· 15. Resolution attached (En cl. 2 ). 1 I recommentl that the Housing Resources - Committee consider this plan and take a position on it before the next Board of Aldermen meeting. Suggest it b e referred to the Legal Pane l, and perhaps also to the Public Relations P anel, for recommendation to the HRC Executive Committee. It app ears that this plan was conceived by Helen Meyers in the Planning Department and developed by her with the assistance of Jack Linville also of the Planning D epartment, with perhaps some coordination by Bill Hewes of .the Buildi ng Department. ,. The Hou s ing Code Division, which must administer the plan, I understand w as n ot involved in its development, does not yet have copy of it, has not seen the map deline ating the areas and treatment proposed and is not pleased w ith w hat they have heard about it. Again, t h e HRC was not informed, consulted or asked to participate i n: d e v e lopme nt of the plan, which so vitally affects housing resources in the City. -: .. ,.,... ... .. . . .. �Mr. C e cil A. Alexande r Septembe r 3, 196 9 Page 2 . In my opinion ( and I think I qualif y by expe r i e nce in Housing Code Enforc e ment to speak) the re are several thing s about the plan that are not practical and which I believe will cause difficulty, i.e.: I l. It i s discriminatory and I do not believe legal. 2. It will be difficult to enfo r ce from a Public Relations angle. 3. The plan was developed from statistics made from exterior inspections only. 4. From casual g lances at the map, the proposed areas for eventual U. R. and NDP trea tment appe ar to be g reate1· than the City' a entire current U. R. and NDP program. (If carried out at the rate of effort proposed for the 1970 U. R. and NDP program, copy attache d (Encl. 3). which I understand is maximum effort, it would require 10 years to complete.) 5. The City is ha ving difficulty now in financing its share of current NDP programs. It will most likeli not be financially able to car r y out these extensive proposed future NDP areas. 6. The areas proposed for partial Code Enforcement only have already been included in the City' s 5 year Housing Code Enforcement program just completed. 7. I cannot accep,t t fJZlid the contention that dilapidation is so bad in the areas propos e d for-~ - · compliance, to make them "safe and sanitary", only. because the majorit y of the structures are not suitable for rehabilitation, that they must be demoli s hed; or that the number of units in this category is as large as claimed by propone nts of the plan. 1 8. If dila p i dation in these areas is as bad as claimed, then this is a serious indictm ent a g ains t t he effectiveness of the past Hou s ing Code Enforcement effort, which I think on the whole has been quite successful. 9. It i s a l s o a serious ind ictme nt again s t th e City of Atlanta for having sp ent the ~mourt of mo ney a n d e ffort w hich it has in U r ban Renewal a nd Housing Code Enforcement , n ot to hav e made mor e p rogr e s s in h ou s i ng improve ments than the plan would indicate. Furth er , i t i s a l so an indic tment agai ns t the success of the City's low-income h ousing program i n producing needed replacement housing. . i I �Mr. Cecil A. Alexander September 3, 1969 Page 3 p/1-r:-{i A-\ 10. ~ If the plan should be adopted, the areas de signated for p ~ compliance only will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate, while waiting hopefully, but in va in~ for the expec ted Urban Renewal which cannot and will n ot come to many of t he areas involved. Thu s , this will inc rease the burden on t he Housing Program to produce l arger quantities of replacement hou sing, .which would n ot be needed, if strict Housing Code E nforcem ent were carried out, based o n actual housing conditions o n thdividual structur es • . In m y opinion, Atlanta has · reached the stage now '\v he re most effective . result s can be obtained by cons tant surveillance of individual structures and appropriate correctio n e r im.?roTreme.nts made· on those structures which need it, no matter where the y exist in the City. Sinc-er.ely. M.ala.olm D • . Jones. Housing Coordinator: MDJ/mc Ends: 1. i. 3. Proposed Housing Code Enforcement: Plan· (les-s:map) :, Resolution Proposed Activities - L970 NDP �1-1 £ ( - ··,.,,. --, CITY HALL October 31, 1969 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN , JR., MAYOR CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman Housing Resources Comm ittee MALCOLM D. JONES Housing Coordinator Dear Members: Executive Group, Housing Resources Committee; and Low-Income Hou?ing Coordinat1ng Group The November :meeting of the Executive Group of the Housing Resources Committee and the Low-Income Housing Coordinating Group will be held Thursday, November 13 at 10: 30 A. M. , in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City Hall. We hope that each of you will be able to attend. We are sorry that limitations of time preclude d completion of the Agenda at the O ctober 8 meeting. Panel Chairmen who were not given an opportunity to submit reports at the last meeting are particularly r equested to submit, at the November 13 meeting, written reports of their Panels' activities and plans through 1969. Recent efforts of certa~n members of the Georgia General Assembly for introducing legislation in the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to create a Georgia Housing Development Corporation to assist small towns and rural areas of the State in obtaining suitable standard housing, should be of considerable intere st to the Housing Resources Committee a nd will be discussed at our November 13 meeting. We would appreciate suggestions from any members of HRC or the Coordinating Group of items for inclusion on the Agenda of the monthly meetings. A return address postal card is enclosed for your convenience in informing us whether you plan to attend the November 13 meeting. Sincerely, Cecil A. Alexander, Chairman Housing Resourc e s Co1nmittee CAA /M DJ/mc Encl: Return address postal card �October 31, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : Collier Gladin FROM : Ivan Allen, Jr. SUBJECT : Attached Better Plea e provid me as soon as practical a memorandum report on the fact surrounding the question rai ed by the attached lett r . I am particularly interested in the exact nature of the action tak n by the Zoning Bo rd at its me ting on June 6 and at subsequent meeting on July 11, 1969. Of particular int reet is whether or not public notice w e given for the ubsequent m eting and if adjoining prop rty owner were notified. .Also, I would like to know what the current tatu• of the zoning of this parcel is. IAJr:em �December 5 , 1969 MEMORANDUM To : Mayor Allen From: George Berry Subject: $125 Request by Housing Resources Committee Colonel Jones advises me that the Housing Resources Committee wishes to invite several guests to their December 18th annw dinner . These guests consist primarily of the news media and state and f deral officials . He says that the cost of these invited guests will be approxi .. mately $ 125 . Will you approve the ·expenditure of this amount from the Mayor 's Contingent Fund? GB:ja �MINUTES £ Housing Resources Committe/1-' October 8, 1969 . The regular monthly meeting of the Housing Resources Com1nittee was held at 10: 30 A. M., Wedne s day, October 8, 1969, in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City Hall. Invitational notice, Agenda, list of those inv-ited, with attendance of members and guests indicated, and other related documents are attached to the file copy of these minutes. Chairman Alexander opened the meeting by explaining the preparation of, and filing by the City on September 19, 1969, an application for consideration by HUD for designation of Atlanta as a prototype housing site City, under 11 0peration Breakthrough 11 ; that two sites were proposed, i.e., a fragmented site in 3 portions in the Model Cities area and a 33. 6 acre composite site at the intersection of Carrol and Harvill Roads, N. W . . It was also explained that Atlanta had been omitted in the initial invitations by HUD and that a very short time was available in which to prepare and submit the application, after Atlanta was invited to do so. The Chairman complemented Urban East, Hou s ing Con s ultant Firm, which assembled the application, and other participants in preparation of the application, including Model Cities, Housing Authority, Planning Department, State Planning Bureau, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and Metropolit an Planning Com1nission. He also commented on favorable supporting endorsements submitted by a large number of Agencies, . business firms, religious groups and civic organizations. \ Schedule was announced as follows: July 11, 1969 Briefing Session {original - did not include Atlanta) September 19, 1969 Proposals Due October 3, 1969 HUD will complete preliminary site evaluation October 17, 1969 HUD inspection teams will complete site inspections November 28, 1969 HUD will announce selection of eight p r ototype sites �r Page Two January 1, 1970 Sites must be cleared and ready for developrnent March 1, 1970 Site improvements will begin June 1, 1970 First housing units will be shipped and installed July 1, 1970 Construct ion and testing period begins. HUD will control l and through leases, options to purchase and purchases. HUD will assume management control of the demonstration program. July 1, 1971 Housing units will be sold and occupied. Mr. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelopment of the Housing Authority was then called upon to present the over all Neighborhood Development Program Proposed Activities for 1970. Mr. O penshaw summarized the propos e d overall program as shown in the attached (Encl. 1) and emphasized the proba ble neces s ity for cut back, as indicated in letter of S eptember 23, 1969, from Region III of HUD (attache d as part of Encl. 1). Mr . Opens haw th e n introduced Mr. Robe rt Barnett, Project Manager of the Vine City NDP project and Mrs. Dorothy Bolden, Vi ce-Chairman of the Vine City PAC (Project Area Committee ). Mr. Barnett very ably explained in detail the process used in developing the plan, through citizen participation (planning with citizens of the area rather than for them) and coordination with various agencies involved. He showed the current overall plan as approved by the PAC and the specific area marked out for execution in 1970. The overall plan includes: a 24- acre park, commercial area, garden type apartment s (no mor e than 2 story), town houses, singl e-family r es ide nces, and a community area (including a day care center). The proposed activities for the 1970 target area are shown in enclosure 1. Mr. Openshaw then introduced Mr. Harry Adley, President of Adley and Associates and Mr. Fred Kerpel and M r. Lavern Parks, ass ocia t ed with Mr. Adley, C ons ultant s for the Edgewood NDP a rea. He also introduc e d Mr . Curtis Parrish, Project M a n ager , Edgewood NDP. Mr. Adley made an excellent color slide presentation of the development process and resulting plans of the Edgewood (formerly known as East Atlanta ) NDP area. See enclosure 1 for proposed activities for 1970. In order to conserve time , further dis cussion of proposed activities i n the NDP areas was concluded. I �Page Three The Chairman then asked Mr. Copen.shaw if there was anything the HRC could do to assist in preventing the drastic cut back in Atlanta I s anticipated Federal capital grant funds for 1970 ?; and called upon HRC members for comment. Motion was 1nad by Mr. Frank Clarke, seconded by Mr. Richard Harvey and after considerable discussion, was unanimously adopted that a letter be written to the Secretary of HUD, with copy to the Regional Administrator, pointing out the disastrous effects such a cut back would have on Atlanta I s current and future NDP activities and urging that every consideration possible be extended Atlanta in not reducing the Federal capital grant funds. (Copy of letter to Secretary Romney is attached, Encl. 3 ). The Chairman then called on reports from Panel Chairmen, starting with Mr. Frank J. Clarke, Chairman of the Construction and De sign Panel. Mr. Clarke presented a formal written rel?ort of his Panel, copy attached {Encl. 2), which includes: 1. His Panel's planned activities for the remainder of 1969; 2. A proposed letter for Mayo·r Allen to deliver to his successor recommending continuation of the HRC and the activities of the Construction and Design Panel; 3. A report developed in his office by an Urban Corps intern pertaining to Atlanta's Codes. Mr . . Clarke recommended that the report on codes be accepted by the HRC and copies transmitted to the Building Official and Chairman of the Building Committee, Board of Aldermen. The Chairman asked if there was any objections? As there was no objection from any member of the HRC, _this will be done. Courtesy copies of the report on codes had previously been presented to Mr. W. R. Wofford, Building Official, before presentation of the report to the Housing Resources Committee. Mr. "\'vofford, who had previously been invited to the meeting, responded unfavorably to the report on codes and specifically requested that certain members of his Department be permitted then to express their views and reactions to portions of the report which pertain to their special activities. The Chairman consented. Mr, Wofford then introduced the following members of his Department: Mr. W. A. Hewes, Senior Administrative Assistant, Mr. Norman Koplon, Structural Engineer, Mr. Wylie W. Mitchell, Chief Plumbing Inspector, Mr. E. F. (Red) Wise, Chief Electrical Inspector, Mr. W. H. Goodwin, Assistant Chief Electrical Inspector and Mr. Romer Pittman, Assistant Chief Plumbing Inspector. Mr. Koplon, Mr. Mitchell and Mr . Wise presented their views on the report. They were all hostile and negative in their comments and expressed strong .dissatisfactio n with the report, insofar as it pertained to their activities . �Page Four Mr. Archer Smith, Chairn1an of the L egal Panel, commented tha t he did not consider the report pertaining to the codes as criticism or condemnation of the Building D epartment , but r a ther in the nature of an inquiry for clarification to l ayme n. He a l s o asked Mr. Wofford that since the Atlanta Building Code is b ased on the Natio n al Building Code, with modifications p e rtaining to Atlanta, if a n index of the changes applicable to Atlanta only has been prepared, in order to provide quick determination of the Atlanta changes by builde r s and architects familiar with the National Building Code, without them h a ving to take hours of reading and comparison between the two, in order to d ete rmine what a r e the Atlanta changes .? Mr. Wofford replied that such has not b ee n prepar e d, but that changes can b e determined by comparison between the two codes. Mr. Alexander commented that if such a listing was available that it would be quite a convenience to architects and he presumed likewise to builders. Since it was past time to adjourn th e meeting, the Chairman announced tha t he would not call for additional Panel Reports nor complete the re1nainder of th e Agenda. One item of interest under Other Business {not taken up during the me eting) was announcement September 30 by the Housing Authority of the offering for bids of the fir st and thus far only tract of land in th e Model Cities area for redevelopment. The offering is for a 5. 43 ac re tra ct south of Atlanta Avenue, betwe e n Conna lly and Hill Streets, S. W. It is being offered on a fixed price basis, with design competition, for not less than 40, nor more than 50, .units of town houses. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P. M. Respectfully submitted, ~ / . --J,...2'~~ --:,1~.-ee~_ / , rJ M alc olm D. Jo es Administrative Coordinator for Housing me En.els: 1. 2. 3. Propos e d Neighborhood D evelopm ent Program for 1970 Report by Chairman, Construction and Design P ane l, d ated Sept. 3 0, 19 69 Copy, letter to Secretar y Romney, dated O c t. 8, 1969 • �HOUSI NG RESOURCES COMMIT TEE Octobe:r• 8j) 1969 Item : Propo s ed Neighborhood Devel opmen t Pr ogram for 197 0 . Mr. Howard Openshaw, Direc tor of Redeve lo pment for the Atlan t a Housing Autho ri t y, outlined Atlanta 's propo sed Neighb o rhood De velopment Pr ogram fo r 1970. The Program c onta ins eight neighb orhood s: Bedford-Pine GA. Tech I I Model Cities Edgewood Vine Cit y· ·?H,igh tning ·:}Plunket town ~-OA. State

New Areas

Maps and statistical summary indi c ating the proposed action program in individual areas was dis cussed. In summary, the 1970 ND? Program proposes the acquisition of 922 parcels of land, relocation of 1 392 families and individuals, demolition of 922 structures, rehabilitation of 830 structures and disp osition of 116 acres of land. As a housing resource for families displaced in- the 1970 program, the Housing Authority will complet9 and h ave ready for occupancy 2033 public housing units and 650 dwelling uni ts for families of low and moderate income. The gross p r oject cost of the 1970 NDP program is 27.4 million dollars. The federal capital grant requested is 20.7 million, the local share is 8.5 million, 7.3 Million includes non-cash grants-in-aid to be provided by the City and 1.2 million in c ash tojbe provided by the Board of Regents . Following HUD approval of addition section 112 c redits of 1.1 million dollars, the cash required by the Bo ard of Regents will be reduced to $165,880. On September 23, 1969, the Department of Housing and Urban Develo pment advised the Atlanta Housing Authori ty that $24,000,000 has been established as the amount available ·fo r the 1970 activity o f the six NeiF,hborhood Development Programg now unde rway in Re gion III. This r eprese nts 45.9% of the f ederal capit al grant funds available in the Region for 1969. The Region al office of HUD will allocate the available funds for 197 0 NDP activi t ies on the basis of each City ' s needs, its record of perfo rmance, and its ability to postpone some acti viti es until a subsequent year. Encl. _1 �,_: ~~- D EPAF~T M EN T OF HOU S I N G A N D UR B AN DE V E L OP M E N T P E ACH T REE SEVEN T H B U IL DI NG , A TL AN T A, GEO RGI A 30323 ~ Room 61+5 j I REGIO N Ill Septembe r 23 ) 1969 I N R EP L Y R EF ER TO: 3RF ~r. Les t e r H. Pe r sell s ~xe cut i ve Direc to r - 1Hou s i ng Autho:r i t y of the I City of At l a nta 1 824 Hurt Buil d j_ ng Atla nta , Ge orGia 30 30 3 Dear Mr. Pe r sell s : Subj e c t : Pro j e c t No . Ga . A- 2 Ne i ghborhood Devel opment Pr ogram Se cond Year Ac ti vit i es We have b ee n advised by Assistant Secretary Lawrence M. Cox tha t $2¼-, 000 )000 he.s been establi shed as tl 2 aTr.ount ave.il abl e for the se c ond year 1 s act.ivity of the six Nei[;·.oorhopd Develo:i)ment Programs now under way in Region III. 'J;'n is a:r:ount of capital grant funds e~ua l s 45 .9% of the amount al l oc ated for the f irst year 1 s activi t y f or t he six programs . The Regional Offj_ce has t he r esponsibi l ity for di viding t he amount of $24 , 000 , 000 amon the si x progr ams . He i nt end t o use other criteda t ha n merel y multiplying l ast yeJ..r 1 s a l lo cations by 45.976; each c i ty 1 s needs , its r e cor d of pe r forr:,J.nce , and i t s ab il ity t o stre tch.s ome ac ti vit i es i nto a sub s equent year wil l be considered . 0 We p rovide y ou t his information as a basis f or yom· preparation of the Neighborhood Devel opment Pr ogram Appl icat ion f or 1970 , Sincerel y yours, ' ~~ { [_,/: /1i1--~--c-·i , _ __ -" err-- __, J ti ~ }.ct t n:; ~ Joh n ']_}. Edmunds Assi,s-tant Reg i onal Ad:nini s t r ator fo r Renewal As sistance cc: Mr . Howar d Openshaw - �Ii 1-. NEIGHD0fll!00D DEVEL0H;ISJ 'l' PB.0GllAH PROI'OSED AC'l'IVITIES - 1970 I C NDP Ar ca Activity 1969 1970 Bedfor d- Pi ne Acquisition-Parcels Rel ocation- Fam. /Ind. Demoliti on- Structu res Rehabili ta ti on-Structures Di sposi tion- Ac~es 154 hhl 174 40 127. 9 130 247 130 141 14.1 Acqu i sition Rel oc ation- Fam. / I nd . Demolition-Structures Rehabilj tati on Dispositi on- Acres 26 9 21 93 59 93 0 0 11. 7 8.2 Mod el Ci ti es Acquisition Rel oca ti on- Fam . /Ind. Demolition-Structures Rehabj.ii tat ion Disposition-Acres 398 431 278 431 65.8 ·L183 609 483 588 66.4 Edgeuood Acquisition Rel ocation- Fam. /Ind. De~olition- Structures Rehabilitation Disposition-Acres Planning 37 42 On.ly 101 6.o Acqu isition Relocation-Fam./Ind. Demolition-Structures Rehabilitation· Disposition-Acres Planning 122 ,. Georgi a Te ch II { . I i I . Vine City Georgia State Lightning Plunket town NDP TOTALS • Acqui sition Relocation-Fa~ ./Ind . Demolition- Structures Rehabilitation Disposition-Acres Acqui sition Relocation-Fam ./Ind. Demolition-Structu res Rehabili t ati on Disposition-Acres Acquisition Relocation-Fam./Ind. Demolition-Structures Rehabilitation Disposition-Acres Acquisition Relocation Demolition Rehabilitation Disposition 37 366 122 0 Only 12.1 8 No 69 Program 0 8 0 1.7 25 34 I No 69 Program 25 0 J.2 24 35 I No 69 Program 24 0 5. 2 578 881 473 471 205.4 922 1392 922 830 116.9 .. �NDP-1970 FINANCIHG -1 ! I GROSS PROGRAM COST ESTIMATED LAND PROCEEDS o· ~ 27, 4'11 , 427 1,661,087 NET PROGRAJ1 COST 25, 750,340 LOCAL SHARE 8, 583,447 Non-cash grants-in-aid 7, 301,427 Cash required (Boar d of Regents ) 1, 282, 020

FEDERAL SHARE Program Capital Grant 17, 166,894 Relocation Grant 2,149,402 Rehabili tation Gra..'1t 1,469,700 Total Federal Capital Grant

Follo1-r.i.ng

$20,785,996 HUD approval of additional Section 11 2 credits of $ 1,1 16,140, cash required (Board of Regents ) reduced t o $ 165,880a �·E NO-l: NEE R rNG G EORGIA. INSTITUTE of EXPERilYl'.ENT ST.ATION TEC]:-:[NOLOG-Y- . Indust rial D evelopment Division 1132 -VV. Peachtreo Stro e t .Atlo.n t a.., 0- eorgio. 30309 8 7 3 - 993 1 A r ea C oc1e 404 Sept ember 30, 1969 Mr. Cecil Alexander, Cha i rman Hous i ng Resources Committe e City Ha l l Atlanta , Georgia 30303 Dear Mr . Alexander : At it s l ast meeting on September 24 t he pane l adopted the following plan for ·its activities between October and J anuary. The plan is based on the as sumpt ion t hat the wi nner of th.e mayoralty election will want to continue Mayor Allen' s work to :improve housing in the city. Wherever poss ible the plan in cludes onl y short term goals which are close to realization because the possibility exi sts that the committee will not continue. It will be manifest ly unfair to r a i se the hopes of clients and then be unable to complete the work which was started. Codes and Code Restrictions t, - The study of specific points in existing cod"'S should continue. Mr . Thomas Gibson, an Urban Corps intern, complete d a brief survey of the contents of the codes during the summer. Hi s report has been transmitted to the chairman. In t he opinion of this panel, his findings are typical of the problems whi ch the codes present to small builders in Atlanta . The panel recommends that hi s report be accepted by the HRC and transmitted to :tvJ.r . Wofford for action. The pane l i s aware that Mr, Gibson was not a technical specialist in codes, but hi s findings are based on a literal reading of the codes, something which must be done if the codes are to be i nterpreted individually by each building inspector. The Atlanta Housine; Authority i s pl anning the purchase and in stal:Lntion of 240 mobi le homes which ,-1:Lll have been manufacture d in compliance with the city codes . The use of t hese units represents a major departure for the city and one that may signal a breakthrough in the acceptance of modular construction. The pane l plans to monitor the use of these mobile home s. The Plwubing Advi s ory Board has agreed to a tria l of pastic piping in drain, waste and vent applications in a singl e f amily home in the city. The panel i_s interested in observing the reaction of th e public to the progressive action of the Plumbing Advisory Board. It wishes to commend the board for being receptive to technical advances. It also reminds the u sers of this innovation that it is . incumbent upon them to establish the consumer acceptance of this product now t hat · t he board has t aken act ion to make its use acceptable. Encl. 2 �r -(, ,I -. Mr. Cecil Alexander Page 2 September 30, 1969 " New Methods and Materials for Construction The pane l wishes to recognize the efforts of Urban East particular l y those of Mr . Edward Benson and the volunteer staff from the var ious c ity, county and stat e agencies which made it possib l e for the city t o prepare a proposal under Operat;i,gn Brcakthrr;mr.;h . The pA.nel is alsG awani of twG priv&t@ rn-·qpooa.J.o ,-,hich · offer int eresting poss DJilities for the design and construc tion of hous i ng in the city if they are funded by HUD. The panel pl a ns to remain abreast of Oper ation Breakthrough and advise the c ity of 1-iays i n which it can benefit from that program. Hous ing in the Model Cities The pane l notes with approva.l the decis ion of Mr. John son to limit further studi es of area problems and emphasize the construction of hous i ng within the funding now available. After convers ation ,-,ith loca l home builders, the pane l has det ermined that relat ively l ittle residential building is unde rway in the city . Thi s means that the construction capab ilities of the se contractors a re ava ilab l e for us e in the Model Cities. Con ers ely, most of the construction i s i n apartment houses whi ch require other skills. Ther efore, the panel recommends that the Mode l Cities staff conc entrate on getting individual town house, patio house and low rise construction started in the near future while contracting companies are open f or compet itive bidding to ensure fair us e of the available f'unds. The panel remains interest ed in the early implementation of the armature study as a means of controlling the expendituTe of available f'unds. However, the erection of homes should not be deferred until compl etion of this study. It is regretab le that funding was not available at an earlier date but it is imperative that the study be completed as soon as possible, even though it is during the erection of some units recommende d by the Eric Hill study. If its services are neede d , the panel will assist the Mode l Cities in the selection of designs or construction methods suitable for the area. In summary, the panel recommends that the work of the Housing Resou.rces Committee be continued by the next administration. A proposed letter for Mayor · Allen to deliver to his successor on this point i s att ached. In the interim between election and the completion of Mayor Allen's term, the committee should reappraise its charges and recommend tho se to be considered for continuation under the new mayor. Chairman, For the Panel FJC:cp lnduotrial Development Dii,i1ion Engineerin8 Experiment Stalion • Georgia ln,t itu!e of Technology �• d , . Dear Mr. .. As you know , our ci ty has a l arge and gr01-1ing demand for housing for all income groups . I am aware of the needs of all of the cit i zens for adequat e hous i ng at a price proport i onal to their ab ility to pay. My program t o increase t he suppl y of hous i ng with this goal in mind i s just now bearing fr uit ., I most earnestly recom- mend it s cont i nuance under your administration. The Housing Resource::,- Committee, made up of many volunteers who have unselfishly gi ven me their time and effort, has been my method of keeping track of progress in the housing pr ogram . Since many of the members of t he cornrnittee are free of political b ias, I have found it useful to have them investigate and report to me on matters too politica lly delicate for my pers onal intervention. technique for accomplishing these delicate tasks l ose . The committee has developed a that I would hate to see the city I strongly recommend that you consider continuing this method of operating when this type of problem arises. But, specifically, I recommend that t he city continue to be receptive to new i deas in design and construction of houses so that we may benefit from the technology which is availab le from many sources. We have architects and engineers on the committee who can advise you impartially on these matters. The problem of codes and r est rictive trade practices has been minimized in Atlanta, but we are still troubled by the l ack of uniformity between uu.r code s and those of surrounding areas . This often prevents us from obtaining maximum participat ion in housing contracts because the contractors who might bid are unfamiliar with or won ' t work with Atlanta codes. I am sat i sfied that Mr . Wofford,once he has a fi rm hand on his staff of building inspectors,will be able to ass i st you in relieving this problem. It is not nearly as severe now as it would be in a period of frantic nome building like that which has occurred in other administrations • �• - 2 - Th e Mode l Citi es program must move ahead faster th an it is presen tly going. , You hav e an experienced s t aff {n the Mode l Ci ti es pr og r am and I recomme nd that you insi s t on performance fro m it. Many s tu dies h ave been on the area 's needs. It is es se nt ia l that ac tion be t aken now to s a tisfy th em. Atl anta Housing Authority has received a grea t deal of critici sm , much of i t from people who are unaware of the tot a l job which the a uthori t y has done. Th e use of relocatable homes in Bedford-Pine and the planned use of mobile homes to further ease the shortage of low-income h ousi ng during redevelopment are but t wo o f th e id ea s which typify th e wor k of this group. I r e commend that you co ntinue to urge them to consid er new ideas on speeding up th e job o f pr ovid ing a decent home to everyone under their jurisdict ion. I have en joyed the opportunity of creating a better environment for ou r ci tizens. When I loo k at an area l ike Thomasville and contrast it with Cabbage- town I cannot help but feel that we are on right trac k . Al l we need is more speed. Even though I shall be out of office, I don ' t expect to stop being conce rned for our citizens. If there is any in which I can be of assistance to you in providing better h ousing, please feel free to call upon me. Sincere ly, Ivan Allen �In 1922 the Secreta ry of Co1ni11e rc e Herbert Hoover reported to Congress that conflicting and a ntiqua t ed building codes .w ere sub s tantia lly incrc.:ising building cos ts in the United Stat~s. has yet to be solved . Forty-seven years later this prob lem In this nation, where effic i ent productive inves tment is the key to economic growth, we see outdated l aws robbing us of their efficie ncy. No industry fee ls this mor e th an building c onstruction , our l argest activity r equiring private investmen t f unds. · And no area is more hurt by this th a n a rap i dly growing , rapidly u-:b,:rnizing area such as Atlanta . Archaic bu il d ing codes c an rob each homeowner of hundreds of do ll ars th at c ould otherwise be used for productive investment. When this is added to the thousands wasted on public buildings, financed by the taxp ayers , it is seen that millions of investment dollars are drained away fro m the building market th rough restrictive buildin~ practic s . This means that £ewer families are ab l e to move into new homes and business are discouraged from making bui lding investments . It is seen then that obsolete building codes can form a drag on the economic development: of a community. Conversely, an up-to-date I building code cannot only make more homes more available to more people , but it _c an also act as a stimulus to a community ' s economic development. The harm done by an outdated building code_i s most .easily seen in low cost , . low income family housing . The several hundred dollars additional ·cost to build a home in a poorly coded jurisdiction means, to many families, the difference between a new house and remaining in a rat infested slum . The numerous urban renewal projects within Atlanta where public funds are spent to make adequate building codes even more important. Our city has five different codes: Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, and Heating and Ve ntilating which will be discussed on detail. BUILDING The building division h as patterned its code after the National Building Code. This code is written and recommended primarily b1 the (ational Board of Fire Underwriters and its basic concern is safty . Very little attention is paid to innovative materials or advances in techno l ogy. ELECTRICAL The Electrical division uses the National Electrical Code with a small book of revisions to apply specifically to Atlanta. There is an Electrical Advisory Board composed of l ocal union and non-union electricians who influence changes and interpretations of the code. There is also an Electrical Examining Board which administers the examination to become a licensed Atlanta electrician. �- 2 - ( Thr ough t h is examina t i on the boar d cont r ols the number of e l ectr ici ans a nd th e l evel of s h il l r e qu ire d f or th at lic ens e. PLUMB I NG Th e Off ic i al Pl umbi ng Code is writ t en by loc a l Atlanta plumb e r s . The P l umbi ng divis i on a l so h a s a Plumbi ng Advis or y Board and Examina t ion Board whos e functi ons para lle l those of the e l e ctr ic a l div is i on. HEAT ING and VE!\'l'ILATING Th e Hea ti ng a nd Vent ilating Code is l oc a lly wr itt en by an advis ory Board , • .. c onsis t i ng o f members of the h ea t ing and ventilat i ng i ndustry of Atlanta . HOUSING ., '· The Atlan t a Housi ng Code sets down minimum housi ng standards for existing bµildi ng and is not primarily concerned with any new construct i on . All of the aforementioned are strictly Atlanta codes. They are a pproved by t h e Board of Aldermen and the Mayor and have the for6e of c ity ordinances. They apply only to building w:i.thi.L'J. t 1e cj,ty l_.imits. CODES OUTSIDE OF ATLA~1 TA Jus t outside of the city limits t he·ce is a multiplicity of codes. The Fulton County Code for example, applies to all £ire.as in Fulton County which are not also in an incorp orated city such as Atlanta or Roswell. In DeKalb County on the other h and , their code applies to all unincorporated areas and t o several inc orporated cities who h ave chosen to use the county code. There are even severa l cities who use the c ounty codes for building and heating, for example, and their own city codes for plumbing and electricity. This presents a very serious prob lem. Many builders serve the entire five county me t ropolitan area and are thus face d with many differen t codes. To solve the problem of applying different specific ations for each building erected they have devised a c omposite area code. This code contains the s t rictest provision on each point in t he various area codes. any house wil l meet the requ irements of any code in any area. In this way As is e as ily seen , this invo l ves a great de a l of wasted time and money, and a better h ouse.is not necessarily t h e result. RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES Unfortunately, Atlanta ' s only code problems are not as a result of other l ocal codes. In spite of rec en t revision, there can be found numerous faults in any of Atlanta's codes. By a fault, I mean a stipulation \vhich adds cost to a house without any improvement . These problems will be discussed with respect to the individual c·o des to which they apply. ~ �.. - 3 - ... PLUNBING Co nsi der i ng th e prese nt t echnology in the ~rad e> the Atl an t a Plumb i ng Code ap pears t o be overly restr i ct i ve i n only two basi c area s. concer ns pl astic drai n , was t e and vent pipe . The fir st The use of th is pi pe i s c ur- rently unde r consideration by the plumbing advis ory bo ard and wil l hopefu l ly be pcr~i t t ed i n t h e near f ut ure. plumbi ng trees. The second a r ea concerns pr efabr icate d Though the code_never specifi c a l ly proh ib i t s these t rees , it d oes require that ~il p l umbing to be done by authorized Atlanta Plumbers. Since most of the prefabricated trees are manufactured outside of the cit~ i t is virtually impossib le for them to comply with t his provision. -r. · Another restrictive r ule i:equires that all plumbing be left expose d for ins pe ction on the site. This means that a prefabricated wall, which :can greatly reduce. costs , cannot be us ed because the plumbing would be inclosed within it. The problems li e in these areas then: a) Plastic drain, waste, and vent p~pe is not considered, b) Not allowing even rough assemblCf outside of the city. c) No special provisions for i nspcct;on of prefabricated walls. ELECTRICAL Far fewer objec tions are voiced on the Electrical Code than either the building or the plumbing codes. The obj ections that are encou;tered concern the necess ity of putting washing machines and dryers on separate circuits, and by th e same token, diswashers and garb age disposers must also b e separated. The only other objection concerned the prohibition of underground feeder and branch circuits. The objections on the El e ctrica l Code were then: a) Inability to put washing machines and_dryers on the. same circuit • b) I nability to put dishwashers and garbage disposers on the same circuit. c) Illegality of underground feeder and branch circuits. BUILDING At this time the Atlanta Building Code exists in two forms, the 1961 edition and its several ammendments and the tota lly revised edition which will go into effect on January 1, 1970. This revised edition contains many provisions that th e local builders have requested and is consequently quite �D . - 4 - up to dat e , There are however, two gl aring items th a t seemed to h ave been over l ooke d . The first concerns the sp a cing of trusses. Pr efab ric a ted roof trus se s have be come a great cos t reduc i ng factor in hose c onstructi on, and th e gener al ly accept ed s paci ng is twe nty -f our inches. The Atlanta code, ap parently failin g to recogni ze the wide spread use of these trusses, refers t o t h em by the ir indiv idual c ompo nents , th a t is, r after s and joists . The code c ites examp l e s where rafters may be p l a c e d twenty-f our inches apart but t h e greates t spaci ng f_o_r a j oi p t is si xtee n inches. ri cated trusses to be sp a ced at si x teen inches. r oof sheathing. ·t Thus requi ring pre fab- Th e o the r prob lem concerns The nationa lly a ccept ed th i ckness for r oof sheating i s 3/ 8 inch, whereas th e Atlanta r; ode cpecifies 5 / 8 i nch , It is in the.se two areas , then, that t h e problem lie : .... a) Sixteen ins ~ead of t we nty-four inch spacing for pre fab ricated roof trusses , b) 5/ 8 inch instead of 3/ 8 inch roof ahaathing, Anoth er very important problem wh i ch ex ists in a ll o f Atlanta 's codes is requiring all of the labor to be performed by craftsmen li censed in Atl;mt a. This greatly limits the amount of prefabrication done in factories outside of Atlanta even ·.:·.though prefabric ation can substantially lower the cos t of a hou se. For example, bathroom assemb li es can be mass produced, not unli ke an automobile, on an assemb l y l ine. These units, including lavatories, water closets, showers , tubs and electrical connections are then transported to th e building site by truck. When the unit is installed in the house it is virtu ally impossible t o tell that it wa s not built in the c onventiona l manner, yet the cost is substantial l y l ower . niqu e, Atlanta ' s c odes do not permit this tech- Since the plumbing and e lectri ca l work was not done within the ci ty l i mits and by lic ensed Atla nta craftsmen1 the unit is prohibited. It seems that i f the unit were built acco rding to a national standard that it s hould be allowed, By inspection at the fact ory it could be determi neJ that the unit would be every bit as safe and dur abl e as a bathroom assemb l ed on t h e site . Safe ty and durability are intended to be the ma jor considerations of a building code. �,. • - 5 - This examp l e il l ustrates a genera l tendency i n the At l an t a c odes t o d i scrimi nate against i nnovation. Prefabri c ation and p l astic pipe are two money savi ng i nnovat i ve tech ni ques which have pr oven t hemse lves s afe and durab le in o ther j urisdictions , yet, they are bo t h prohibited, Ev entua l ly, t hey wi ll both undoubt ed ly be accepted but in the mean t ime a great dea l of . \ ... money is spent ~nnecessarily. Sa fegua rds must be maint ained to pr ote ct the h orn~ buyer from any faulty or dangerous innova tions but there is a need for a prov i sion in our co e6 to a l low f~r the test ing of new ideas by an imp artial Tes t and Evalua tion Board. a nd dur-ability of th e produ ct . 1. Th ese tests wou ld che ck both the performance If the ·t ests were successfully passed the object or technique wou1.d be approved ancl it could Le put into use uithout t he l ong l egisl a tive battle invo lved in altering a code. ·"' The improvement of Atlanta's Code i s a difficu lt but necessary task. It will r equire vigo1·ous joint action from chambers of c.ommerce, civic s~tvi~e gruups , a~d trn<l0 dnd pt ufcsoionnl aooociations. and thcro iu no t~dB0~ f or a progress i ve city l ike Atlanta to a ll ow antiquated building codes to retard its urban constr ction. Admittedly there are many problems associated with any urban renewal project but the slums aria scar on Atlanta ' & face · and new building are the sti~hes needed to close that scar. A Progressive set of building codes is the needle with which these stiches must be made. �. HOUSiiTG RESOURCES COMMITTEE O<.:tobei· 8, 1969 . The Honcl"able G~or~e Romn ey Scc:r.ctal· y of the UaHcd St"te Department of Housing aud Urban Development Wa -hJ.nr~toi1, D . c .. Dear Mr. SecretaI.·y: On October 8, 1969, at i-cque t of this Committee, a pl"esentation was made to the Committee b>' a. rcr:i:eeentat:i.vc of. the Houning Authodty of th City of Atlant:i (the City':1 Agent for carrying o.~t the U.rb2.L1 Renewal Progra.111.) on propo.ccc.l a ctivitica for 1}70 in the City'o Pc.1.ghbo1·hood Development P1·ogram. Copy of oumm,i1·y i::; attached {E ncl. !). Thie proi)Oscd program includco 1:athcr extensive activities in the flvo e:doting NDP ai·ea.s and also min mum acquisition in three additional .11· 'a.S. Two of t.hcse, i. c. Lightning and Plunkettown a:l:"e ve1.·y deprccsc<l resi<lentia.l at>en.s, which tl iB Ccmmittce luo been strongly promoting for acquioitim1 co1nmcncing in U70, in or<lci• to 1·id the City of these 13peci.fic pocl:cts o! very dilapidated residential slums. 0 The City has made a major effort in developing thl::; proposed program and is prepared to meet the local Ghare o( the Net Project Coot, ao indicated in the attached. However, letter recently received frOl'n Region III of HUD (copy attached) indicates a draa;ic cut back in the anticipated Federal capital grant funds with which to finance the Federal share of Atlanta's proposed N eighl>orhood Development Program !or 1970. This would mean a severe blow to Atlanta's 1970 NDP program and great dioappointment to the Project A1:ea Committees (PACs) and other citizens of the areas involved. with ...vhom the Housing Authority, the City Planning Department and this CommitteeTa-;e been working closely for so long. A drastic cut back now in propoacd activities would be disastrous to morale and neighborhood aspirations. Encl. 3 �The H onorable George Romney . October 8, 1969 Page 2. t1 mt:a has pi·cviously established an en via b!.e reputation for Ur b,tn Renewal and NDP accomp!inhment and can be depended upon to continue to do a e x-editable j ob in this respect. ,P The Housing ResouE"ccs Committee Hoelf was created by Mayor Allen i n Novembe!" 1966 to pron1.ote . c oorcli_n ate an.tl C)~?editc tho City's lov,· ~nd moderate income housin[; pro£5ra.m . To date H hao accomplished creditable results. as eviden c ed by the attached Summary - Status:; o! Accelerated Low-Inc ome Housing Program (End. 2 ). Thcrcfor'3 on b2half of, and in accordance with formal unanimous action by tho E:·ccutive Group, Housing Resourc0s Committce I uz-ge that cvc'i:y consideration be eiv1~n by your office to maintaining Fcdcr~1.l capital. grant funds to be allocated to Atlanta in. cu?pc-1.·t of the 1970 NDP program at or as near a.s posaible to the p1·oposcd I Jct Project Cost of the 27. 4 millio11 dollal"s. 0 Since1·cJ.y Cecil A. Alexander• Chairman Hou&ing Resources Committee CAA/me Encls: 1. Summa1·y, Atlanta ' s Proposed Neighborhood Development Program for 1970. Z. Sun,mary .. Status of Accelerated Low-Income Housing Program. cc : Mr . Edward H. Baxter Regional Administrator Region III, HUD - �C TY OF .ATJ-dA.i'\TT. l\.. September 25, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR ., MAYOR CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman Housing Resources Committee MALCOLM D. JONES Housing Coordinator Mr. Collier B. Gladin Planning Director City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Collier: Enclosed is a complete rev1s1on, dated August 15, 1969, (as of July 31, 1969) of Status Report on the Low and Moderate Income Housing program in three sections: Summary, Inventory and Index. As you will note, the Inventory of projects has many blanl< spaces, which were intended for insertion of certain data, which the limited facilities and staff of this office have precluded obtaining the desired information necessary to complete the forms. The principal items needed are bedroom composition, monthly rentals or payments, estimated or actual time for completion and name and telephone number of local contacts from whom specific additional information may be obtained. In as much as you have proposed that an element of your Department could serve as the staff research arm of the Housing Resources Committee, I am therefore submitting to you herewith the attached copy of this latest Low and Moderate Income Housing Status Report, prepared by this office, with request that your Department comp.lete the blanks on the current Inventory dated August 15, 1969, make changes in status of development of existing projects and add such additional projects to the Inventory as are appropriate, through October 31, 1969, and return this report to me by November 10, 1969, showing the additional information, in order that this office may prepare a complete revised report as of November 15, 1969, showing comparative figures with those contained in the Second Annual Report of November 15, 1968. This information is essential and will be very much appreciated. �September 25, 1969 Mr. Collier B. Gladin Page Two Sally Pickett and Helen Meyers of your office are anxious to see the current enclosed report and to extract certain inf::)rmation from it for your files. Sincerely, Malcolm D. Jones Housing Coordina tor MDJ/mc Encl: cc: Revision of complete Status Report on the Low and Moderate Income Housing Program dated August 15, 1969 in thr e e sections. Mr. Cecil A. Alexande r Mr. Dan E. Sw eat, Jr. ~ �MINUTES Housing Resources Committee September 4, 1969 .. I I The regular monthly meeting of the Housing Resources Committee was held 3:00 - 5:00 P. M., Thursday, September 4, 1969, in Committee Room 2, Second Floor, City Hall. This meeting was devoted exclusively to responses by candidates for Mayor to questions posed by members of the HRC pertaining to the respective . candidates' position on housing. Invit_a tions to candidates were issued by the Public Relations Panel, HRC, which sponsored the meeting. The scheduling of time of appearance, advance press releases and letters of appreciation to candidates after their appearance were all handled by the Chairman, Public Relations Panel. Copies of these, together with invitational notice, to HRC members, Agenda, with time indicated for each Candidate (Encl. 1) and other related documents are attached to the file copy of these minutes. Chairman Cecil Alexander was out of town and could not a ttend the meeting, so Mr. Richard Harvey, Chairman of the Public Relations Panel conducted the meeting. Chairmen of the respective Panels prepared and sent questions to the Housing Resources Committee Office a week before the meeting in order that the questions could b e provided each Candidate in a dvance so that the Committee would receive more comprehensive answers. Those questions were mailed to the respective candidates on August 29, 1969. Copies of the questions are attached to these minutes (Encl. 2 ). Each Candidate was given 10 minutes to express his views on housing, and a 10 minute question and answer period. During the question and answer phase, the Chairmen of the respective Panels asked the Candidates questions pertaining to their particular Panel interests. All Candidates wer e present except Mrs. Linda J enness, who was out of town that day. Mr. John V atava represented Mrs. Jenness. Formal opening statements by candidates Jennes s and Mas sell were submitted to the HRC and are attached to the file copy only of the minutes of this meeting. ·, �Page Two Alderman Millican' s opening statement attempted answers to as many of the written questions prepared by the respective Panels, as time would permit. Alderman Cook and Mr. Tate spoke from notes only and submitted no prepared opening statements for the record. ~ Questions asked respective candidates were in general selected from lists previously submitted to them and notes were taken by Panel Chairmen on questions asked. Replies were so numerous and involved and stenographic assistance so limited as to preclude recording in the minutes of specific questions asked · and answers given. In general, however, all candidates with the exception of Mrs. Jenness (represented by spokesman) appeared to be sympathetic with the low and moderate income housing program and offered to assist where practicable. From this standpoint, it is apparent that the meeting was beneficial and worthwhile. Newspaper comment on the meeting is attached to the file copy of the minutes. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 00 P. M. Respectfully submitted, ~d ~ .i2-<--<..nl--<.C.,. Malcolm D . .~ s Housing Coordinator me Encls: Agenda Questions by Respective Panels ·.·, ~ �~-~ ..- - - - ~ · . : : . - - " ' - • - ~ - - -. ,:. ...._..z.!1..~UI..:.· _, •• • • - ~, _ _ .!.....-.~ •••• · - '"i.!.!.."..__ - .: _ _.... _ "-- -· ~ •

.,__,:_;:__ • •

-_;,~~ · C. • • • HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE September 4, 3: 00-5: 00 P. M. CANDIDA TES FOR MAYOR Linda Jenness (Mrs.) Socialist .Workers Campaign Committee P. O. Box 7817 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 3:00 Sam Massell, Jr. 40 Pryor Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 3:20 Dr. Horace E. Tate Executive Director Georgia Teachers and Education Association · 201 Ashby Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 3:40 Rodney M. Cook 34 10th Street, N. E. Atlant a , Georgia 30309 4:00 G. Everett Millican 500 Bishop Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30318 4:20 0 . • .... �- -··-- ----- - - -, Questions by Housing Locations Panel Housing Resources Committee 1. (a} (b} Would you support prompt mutual cooperation and assistance of public bodies in the Atlanta Metropolitan area in providing adequate sites for low-income housing, including Public Housing, preferably iri small developments not exceeding 200-300 units each, distributed throughout the Atlanta Metropolitan area and insofar as feasible, in reasonable proximity to sources of employment for the occupants? How would you propose going about getting this done? 2. Would you support a comprehensive review and rezoning of the entire City of Atlanta to be made as soon as possible to meet the constantly expanding needs of the City? 3. What is your feeling about establishing a separate apartment zoning category for Federal assisted multi-family housing developments ? 4. Would you advocate that the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta actively seek appropriat e locations, both within and outside the City Limits of Atla nta, with vi ew to establishment and operation of Public Housing developments thereon in groups of not to exceed 200-300 units each? ...., ... �- -· - ~ - . ;,: .. ,. ·,, - --- ,. Questions by Construction and Design Panel Housing Resources Committee To All Candiates: 1. Do you favor and will work toward a single Building Inspector with authority over all building trade inspectors? Will you insist upon this being carried out? 2. Will you support the effort to get low and medium housing built in the neighborihg suburban areas? 3. Would you encourage the Building Inspector to give positive consideration to innovations? 4. Would you favor an Appeals Board be given authority to override decisions of the Building Inspector? I ·., �. ... ~· .. - · .., . . ...,~ Questions by Legal Panel Housing Resources Committee 1. Whether or not the entire City should be rezoned, and if so, whether they would employ the 1983 Land Use Plan as their basic guide? 2. Their position on package zoning, i.e., disbursing public housing units throughout all quadrants of the City, and, in particular, whether each candidate would favor public housing in the ward in which they presently reside, if land could be located that was feasible in cost, and if the requisite community facilities were available? 3. ~ Should the· City undertake to construct public housing units with public funds to · provide for its poor, and do they feel that priva te enterprise is capable and willing to meet this need, should the City not continue the fostering of public housing? 4. Does a public housing unit of the caliber of the John 0. Chiles Project on Ashby Street lower or improve prqperty values and the standards of the community, if it were placed in (a) a slum neighborhood; (b) a lower middle class neighborhood; (c) a middle class neighborhood; (d) an upper class neighborhood? 5. Do you feel that the Atlanta School Bo a rd should be given the right, and should exercise the right, to lease school buildings from a private developer in order to provide the requisit e cornmunity facilities in a l a rge public housing project, as opposed to the present system of having to a cquire the land in fee simple before being able to use it for school purposes? 6. Do you feel that the present Housing Resources Committee, consisting of one staff man, one secretary, with the Chairman and the rest of the Committee being engag e d in private enterprise, should be abolished, e x panded, or diminished? 7. What is your position on the proposal that a separate housing department be created for the City with a department head holding equal dignity with other departments, a full time staff, and sufficiert secretarial assistance? 8. What would be your position on a specific grievance procedure relative to eviction and discipline in Atlanta Housing Authority projects? .·, 1 �I •• ' ' C I .. i .Il ! ' Questions by the Social Aspects Panel . Housing Resources Committee i. To All Candiates: 1. Do you see a need for emergency housing in Atlanta; and if so, do you see this as a responsibility of City Government? 2. In what positive ways would you work to insure Fair Housing in Atlanta? 3. Since Low-income Housing units are intended as replacements for slum dwellings, but yet slums still exist; what ideas do · you have for eventually eliminating slum pockets in Atlanta? 4. How can the Mayor's Office work with the Atlanta Housing Authority to obtain b etter social services for families and senior citizens in Public Housing? -·----- ., �I MODERATE AND UPPER INCOME IN-TOWN HOUSING Housing Resources Committee POSSIBLE QUESTIO~S CQ~CERi' .JING HaJSING DEVELOPt.ENT IN ATLANTA I. M..1ch emphasis, effort and expense -has been placed on low-incorre housing developrrent in Arrerica's larger cities and, as you know, Atlantq. is a leader in this field. How- ever, many people arc concerned that, unless sorre comparable emphasis is placed on the problem of middle to upper incorre housing, the city will eventually be inhabited primarily by the poor. \\1hat are your views as to what generally nust be done to hot only stem the flow of middle to upper income groups out of the city, but also to attract those who have alre ady left to return? II. Many people feel that it would be sense less to initiate any large scale housing program designed to encourage middle to upper incorre groups to remain in the city until the crirre problem in Atlanta is alleviated. Do you feel that this is .. indeed a significant factor in this problem and if so, what do you think generally nust be done about it? "'. L �• .. Questions by Public Relations Panel Housing Resources Committee i. What is your attitude toward low-income ·housing? 2. What do you see as the future for low-income housing in the Atlanta area? 3. What steps should be taken, if any, to reconcile the management points of view expressed by the Atlanta Housing Authority a nd TUFF (Tenants United For Freedom); i.e., how do you feel about self determination in the operation of housing units? 4. Much has been said about the need for single family lowincome housing - - how would this b e financed and where would it be built? 5. What is your attitude toward the present zoning law? it be changed - - if so, how? 6. What is your attitude toward the pre sent building code? it be changed - - if so, how? 7. Do you env1s1 on a continuation of the Housing Resources Committee? If so , in what dire ction? .·, Should Should �·. ·Questions by Chairman August 26, 1969 Housing Resources Committee QUESTIONS 1. Will you support the rezoning of the entire city so as to include needed areas for all types of development including low income housing? 2. Would you support the creation of a Housing Department in the City to directly handle problems of low income housing? 3. Will you vigorously pursue the enforcement of the Housing Code? 4. Do you favor a City Building Code that would allow the most advanced approved building techniques? 5. Will you support tl-E continua tion of a vigorous housing program over your term of off ice with the goal of eliminating all of Atlanta's slums? 6. Will you ask for the 2,000 units of public housing needed to complete the present program? 7. Will you a. b. c. Continue the Housing Resources Committee Merge it with Citizens Advisory Committe e for Urban Renewal Disband the Committee 8. Will you continue to seek _all possible Feder•al aid in programs concerning low income housing ? 9. What are your goals for housing in Atlanta? ....., . . �1 CI Y OF A.TL.,iAl'JT.A CITY HALL ATLANTA, G A . 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMEN T OF PLANNING COLLIER 8. GLADIN, Dir e cto r September II, 1969 Mr. Cecil A. Alexander, Chairma n Housing Resources Commi ttee ~ Finch , Alexander, Barnes, Rot hscfii Id and Paschal I 44 Broad Stre et Atlan ta , Georgia De ar Cecil: We are delighte d to have the support of f·he Housing Re sources Committee in atte mpting to i nclude "highly critical areas, such as Plunke ttown and Ligh tning, in th e 1970 NDP application for exe cution purposes". As you will recall, we atte mpted to in c lude these two are as in the 1969 NDP application. Howeve r, they fa il ed to be i nc luded due to lack of local finan cing. We are ma king the same attempt aga in f·his year to include J·he se two are a s in the 1970 NDP ap p li cation . As yet, we st ill do n ot know whethe r loca l fin a ncing wi ll enab le us to include them. Re lative to th e las t Whe reas cl a use and ite m d (last pa ragra ph of the Resolution), this is not a ma tte r J-o be taken up with HUD. Unde r NDP t his p roce du re of "poo ling " ~i sca !! aneous ly" det ived loca l non-cash cre dits is, in fact~ pe rmissi b le and e ncou rage d by HUD. None the less , the Di re ctor of Fina n ce took th e posit ion last year, and it is p resume d he wi ll do so again thi s year, that each a rea included in the ND P a pp li c a tion shoul d be se lf-supporti ng and be supporte d by a five- ye ar fina n c ing p la n. Let ' s assume, for examp le , th a t there we re a surpl us of loca l non-cash g ra nts- in-aid in Bedford Pine unde r NO P in 1969 and 1970 and fu rt he r, it wa s de cide d to use this sur plus to fi nan ce and in c lude new a reas (such a s Plunkettown and Lig ht nin g ) in t he 1970 NDP a ppli cat ion. Furt her, le t's assume tha t Bedford-Pine in 1971, 1972 a nd 1973 had need of us ing these su rp lus cred its i t had ge nerated in prior years. The point bei ng that b y using a ll surp lus credits the re wou ld be no reserve for fut u re years and t he c il·y woul d face a cash deficit in 1973, 1974 and 1975 in fin ancing Bedford - Pinei a lso, possib ly a cash d e fic it in fi na nci ng the new areas ad de d in 1969 and 1970. �• Mr. Ceci I A. Alexander -2- September 11, 1969 While we share the concern that highly critical _areas need to be included in , annual NDP applications, financial stabilil-y and financial restraints do play a maj·o r role. The answer to this dilemma is one on wh ich the Pla nning Department and the Finance Department concur and have recommended to a recent joint meeting of the Planning and Development Committee and the Finance Comm ittee on this very matter. This city must make an annual, .fixed appropriation of cash for NDP and Urban Renewal purposes, which sum can be coun ted on and u sed to finance future NDP applications and to get on with this matter of work ing in highly critical areas in;tead of just talking about them. Sincerely, ~\ ~ Col Iier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG/ jp Copy to - Mayor Ivan Al !en Dan Sweat .. �• -·- •. .. CITY HALL Aug ust 25, 1969 ATLANTA , GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Arca Code 404 IVAN ALLEN , JR ., MAYOR CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairm an Housing Resources Committee MALCOLM D. JONES Housing Coordinator Honor a ble Iva n Alle n, Jr., M a yor City of Atlanta City H a ll Atlanta , G e orgia 30 3 03 D ear Ivan : Enclosed is copy of Resolution un a nimou s ly a dopted b y the Housing Resourc es Committee a t its re g ula r monthly m eeting , August 14, 1969. Thi s R esol u ti on r epresent s o ffi cial action b y thi s C omm ittee i n support of ite m 3b. o f your l ette r <Y~ April 3 , 1969 , to : " Supp ort t h e nee d t o inc lude h i g hly criti cal a r ea s, such a s Plunke ttown and Lig htn i ng, i n t he 19 70 N DP a ppli cati on for e x ecut ion purposes. 11 C opies of this R e sol ution h a ve b e e n pr o vided e ach mernb e r of the Pla nning and D evelopme nt C omm ittee , th e Pla nnin g Dir ec tor a nd th e E x ecutive Di rec tor o f th e H ous i ng Aut hority. Pleas e note th e last Whe r eas and ite m d (las t par a gr a ph of t h e R esolution ). If you thi nk w e ll of thi s idea , w e will b e g l a d to dr a ft a l e tter to HUD for y our signatu re , or y ou m i g ht p refer f o r the P l a nning D e p ar t ment t o pr e p are t he l e tt e r . Sinc e r~ C ec il A . A l exander, Chairman Housing Resourc e s Committee CAA / me Encl: Copy of R es o l utio n �I RESOLUTION by the Housing R e sources Com1nitt e e SUPPORTING THE N EED FOR HIGHLY CRITICAL DEPRESSED AREAS, INCLUDING LIGHTNI NG AND PLUNK ETTOWN, IN THE NEXT ND P APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION IN 19 70. WHEREA S, Ther e a re s everal highly critic a l and r e l a tively limit e d d e pre sse d ar eas in Atla nta of e x treme l y sub s t a n d a rd hou s i ng, such a s PLUNKETTOWN, LIGHTNING, HUFF RO A D a nd SPRIN G AVENUE, N. W . ; a nd WHERE A S, The mo s t a ppropri a te and fea s ibl e a ppro a ch toward elimina tion of the substa nda rd cond i ti o ns in thes e are a s in cl ea r a n ce a nd redeveloprn.ent of t h ese ar eas throu g h t h e N DP pro g r a m.; and WHER EAS , Pot ential no n-c as h gra nt s -in- a i d c r e di ts for the a bove sta t e d ar ea s ar e v e ry li1nit e d; a n d WHEREAS , The s ub s t a nda rd p h y s ical conditi o n s in the s e ar e as a re of such lo n g s t a ndi ng w ith l i ttl e re a l e ffo r t m a d e in th e p a st to corre c t the m; a nd WHEREA S , The C i t y c a nnot elim i nat e it s princip a l a r ea s of sub sta nda rd c ondi tion s and i nfe rior d we ll i n g s un t i l th ese a :r e a s ba ve b ee n brou g ht unde r NDF tr eatment; a nd WHE REAS , Th e C i t y of Atla nta h a s a s urplus of a p pr o x im a t e ly $2 . 2 million i n n o n -c as h gr ant s -in-a i d cre dit s in th e Co nventi rrn.a l U r b 3.n R enewal pro g r a 1n. 0 . �• • NOW T HEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by th e Housing Re s ources Comn1ittee: a. Tha t the Planning and Deve l op~nent Corn.mittee of th e Board of A l dermen be a nd a re hereb>r r e qu es t ed to includ e th e sp e cific area s list e d above , in the City 1 s NDP app lic a tion for Execution i n 1970; and b. T hat the M ayor and Boa rd of.Aldermen b e and are he r e by requ este d to approve the in c lusion of th es e areas for E xe cution in the ne xt NDP a ppli cation of th e City o f Atlanta ; and c. T hat a lthough we encourage and a ppre ci a te th e efforts of other neighborhoods to i1nprove their areas through the NDP pro g r a 1n , if we a re to eli1ninate the worst s lum. s i n th e City , addition a l and l ess d e teri or a te d a r eas should not b e p l aced in pr iority above the a r e a s li ste d in this R e3o luti o n, for inc lu sio n in th e ne xt N DP ap plic a t i o n for execution in 197 0, but rather that speci a l e ffort s be made to a l s o includ e such worthy a re a s . d. That the F ederal Govermn e nt (HUD) b e forma ll y r equested by the M a y or to a uthorize utiliz a tion of a reasona b l e portion of Atl a nta 1 s s u rplu s credit s in it s c o ~1.ve nti o na l Ur ban R e n ewal pro gr a m to help 1neet the l ocal sha re of N DP ac ti v ity in the s e parti cul ar areas . �Po s i t i o n P a p e r HOUSING LOCATIONS P A NEL Hou s ing Resources Committee For families in the lowe st income br a ckets, $3 ,000 and b e low, which is generally considered pover ty level, low- rent Public Housing has to date been the . only cur rent means of pro v iding standa rd housing. Other Federal as s i s t e d progr a ms, such as the FHA 221 d(2) (Single-family home ow ner s hip); th e 221 d(3) (Thus f a r the w ork horse of th e rnulti-family low income housing program); and th e 235, 235 (j) and 236 progr a ms a uthorized in the 1968 Hou s ing Act, ar e all designed ~o provide sta ndard hou s ing for those families whose incomes ar e just above the Public Housing leve l but n o t suffi cient to ena ble th e m to comp e te for standa rd housing in the priva te ent e rprise op e n m a rket, a s it is now constituted. Rec e nt sur vey , c o n duct e d b y a priva te gr oup, s howe d that more tha n 8 0% of the e x istin g and proj ec t e d Public Hou s ing units in th e Atla nta M e tropolita n area a re lo cat e d wi thin t he City of Atla nta . Furth e rmo r e, the FHA 221 d(3) mode rat e income hou s ing p r o gram i s prohibit e d by F e d e ral l aw from going in a ny a r e a that do es not h ave a certifi e d Wo r k a bl e Progr a m . (No n e of th e Countie s i n the Atlanta Metr o p o litan a r ea h a ve ce r tifi e d Wo r k a bl e Prog r a m s .) This r es t r i ction h owever do es not a pply t o the F HA 2 3 5 or 23 6 m oder ate income h ou s ing pr o gram s autho r i ze d b y the 1968 H ou s ing A c t. S inc e th e metropo lita n area outs id e the A tlant a Cit y Limit s pr ovid es j ob opportunities and emp l oyment for such a l arge p ortion of the Atlanta Metrop o l itan population and constitutes the primar y base for the growth of the Metropolitan .area, it is only j ust and reasonab l e tha t low- rent Publ ic Housing units and Federally " �Page Two . assisted moderate income housing be more equitably distributed beyond the City Limits of Atlanta. At the present time, in Atlanta I s current housing program, locations are needed for ·2 , 261 Public Housing units to meet reservations already requested by the City and approved by the Housing Assist'ance Administration of HUD. Also, Federal reservations and sites are needed for an additional l, 936 Public Housing units in order to meet the City 1 s 5-year goal in this important category. Under existing Federal policies, the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta is authorized to produce (build, buy or lease) and operate Public Housing units ·within 10 miles distance of Atlanta City Limits, provided the locations are not within the jurisdiction of another legally constituted Housing Authority and if the governing body of the administrative jurisdiction in which the developments are to be located consents and agrees to provide the necess a ry community facilities. Since the FHA 235 and 236 housing programs do not require Workable Programs nor form a l agreement by the local a dmini s tr a tive bodies to pro v ide community facilities, there is an opportunity under these progr a ms for developments to be loc a ted in almost any administrative jurisdiction within the Atla nta Metropolita n are a . We, memb e rs of the Housing Locations Panel of the Housing Resources Com m ittee , b e li eve t hat a d e quate physi cal s ites e x i s t (b ut not w itho ut s e riou s p r o b l ems as to ava i la bility), b o th w ithin th e City Limits o f Atlanta and in th e u n i nc or porat e d area s o f a dj acent counti e s, to me e t c u r r e nt a nd future lowincom e housi n g needs, w ith ou t de trim e nt t o any g roup o r ne i ghborho o d. Howeve r, �Page Three many tests such as zoning, goverrunent agency approval, price, utilities, and availability mu3t be passed. These tests greatly limit site acquisition.. We also feel that not all future Public Housing units or Federally assisted 1noderate income housing should be locate d within the City of Atlanta . We further feel that within the City of Atlanta, Public Housing should be dispersed a nd that Public Housing developments outside the City should be located near sources of employment for the occupa nts, in developments of not to e x c e ed 200- 300 units each. We also believe that home ow nership for both mode rate and low-income fa milie s should b e encour a ged, whe r e ever po s sible a nd tha t priva t e e nte rpris e should continua lly be enc ouraged to produce needed housing in all c a tegories. We w elcome a ll efforts to produce h o using throug h private e nte rpri s e a nd hope tha t wa y s and m ean s will b e fou n d to c r e a te h o u s ing thro:ig h thi s tr a ditiona l m e tho d. We further f e el t hat Atlanta urgently ne e ds a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordina n ce a nd comple t e r ez o n ing of the e ntire City (not done sinc e 19 5 4 ) in o r d e r to b e s t m e e t the C i ty' s n ee d s in m a n y fie l ds , t o inclu d e a d e qua t e p ro v is ion for low -inc om e hou s ing o f all cat egorie s. Sinc e res ide ntial cons truction is l a r gely c hanne l ed cos t- w i se i n econom ic s t r a ta, t hroug h r equi r e m e n t s on m1 mmum l o t s i ze s a u t h orized f o r res p ect ive Zoning D istricts , thereb y lim iting upp e r b racket s on c o n s t ru c tion c o sts whi ch are p rac tica l for the va r i ou s c a t e go r i es , it fo llow s tha t a p a rtm e nt z oning mig h t j us t as l o g i call y a l s o h a v e seve r a l c a t eg o r i e s , with s om e p 3.rti c u l a r cat egorie s g ea r e d t o l o w- r e nt P u b lic Housing a nd to F e d e rally a ssiste d hou s ing p rograms , such a s the FHA 221 d (3 ), 235 and 23 6 . I .. �Page Four We therefore recommend and urge the following: a. Prompt mutual cooperation and assistance of public bodies in the Atlanta Metropolit a n area in providing a dequate sites for low-incorn.e housing, including Public Housing, preferably in small deve_lopments not exceeding 200- 300 units each, distributed throughout the Atlanta Metropolitan area and insofar as feasible, in reasonable proxi1nity to sources of employment for the occupants. b. That home ownership projects be sponsored and encouraged where ever possible for both moderate a nd low-income families. c. That private enterprise seek to enter the field of low-income housing. That a comprehen s iv e review and rezoning of the entire City of Atlanta be made as soon as possible to meet the constantly expanding n ee ds of the City'l. .::.·--~ That consideration be given to establishing separate apartment zoning categories for Federal assisted multi-family housing developm ents . f. That the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta actively seek appropriate loc ations , both within and outsid e the City Limits of Atlanta, with view to establishment and operation of Public Hou sing develo?ments thereon in groups of not to exceed 200- 300 units each, g. Tha t the Housing Lo cations P a n e l of the Housing Re sources Committee me et and confer w ith County Comm.ission e rs of adjoining counties, encour a gin1 their cooperation and active participation in locating som e low-rent Publi c Housing units and moderate inco1ne housing deve lopm ents in appropriate locations within their respective j urisdiction. �• Page Five SIGNED : �RESOLUTION by the Housing Resources Commi.ttee ,. SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR HIGHLY CRITICAL DEPRESSED AREAS, INCLUDING LIGHTNING AND PLUNKETTOWN, IN THE NEXT NDP APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION IN 1970. WHEREAS, There are several· highly critical and relatively limited depressed areas in Atlanta of extremely substandard housing, such as PLUNKETTOWN, LIGHTNING, HUFF ROAD and SPRING AVENUE, N. W.; and WHEREAS, The most appropriate and feasible approach toward elimination of the substandard conditions in these areas in clearance and redevelopment of these areas through the NDP program; and WHEREAS, Potential non-cash grants-in-aid credits for the above state d areas are very li1nited; and WHEREAS, The s ubstanda rd physical conditions in these areas are of such long standing with little real effort m ade in the p as t to correct them; and WHEREAS, The City cannot e liminate it s principa l areas of substandard conditions and inferior dwellings until these areas have b ee n broug ht unde r NDP treatment; and WHEREAS, The City of Atlanta h as a surplus of approximately $2. 2 million in non-cash grants- in- a id credits in the Conventional Urb::tn Renewal progran1 . �NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b y the Housing Resources Committee: a. That the Planning and Deve lopment Committee of the Board of Aldermen be and are hereby requested to include the specific areas listed a bove, in the City's NDP application for Execution in 1970; and b. That the Mayor and Board of Aldermen be and are hereby requested to approve the inclusion of these areas for Execution in the next NDP application of the City of Atlanta; and c. That although we encourage and appreciate the efforts of other neighborhoods to improve their ar e as through the NDP pr.ogram, if we are to eli1ninate the worst slums in the City, additional and less deteriorated areas should not be placed in priority above the areas listed in this Resolution, for inclusion in the nex t NDP a pplic a tion for e xe cution i n 1970, but r a ther tha t special efforts be made to also include such worthy areas. d. That the Federal Governm e nt (HUD) be form a lly r e queste d by th_e M a yor to a uthori ze utili zation of a re a sona ble portion of Atla nta I s su r plus credits in its con v e ntional Urban Renew a l program to h e lp meet the loc a l shar e of NDP ac tivity in the s e particula r ar eas . �CITY OF A.TLANTA. March 18, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522 -4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR CECIL A. ALEXANDER , Chairman Housing Resources Committee MALCOLM D. JONES Housing Coordinator MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Director of Governmental Liaison In connection with the recent attempt to resolve an apparent impasse (requested by owner of the Chamberlain Apartments, a 30 unit 221 d(3) project, on Chamberlain Street in the Butler Street Urban Renewal area) the following situation was brought to light. The architect submit~ed complete and detailed plans to the Building Department, including Heating and Ventilating, and obtained a building permit. Subsequently, the Heating and Ventilating Division declined to go along with the heating plans by insisting on an additional heating duct in the kitchen area, for which the logical location was a boxed-in channel near the ceiling, through which gas pipes had already been installed, thus preventing the addition of a heat duct. The Architect claims this was shown on the original drawings submitted to the Building Department; and, at time of issuance of the building permit, nothing was said about the Heating and Ventilating plans being unsatisfactory. This was confirmed by the Contractor and by representative of the Heating and Ventilating Division. It developed that this situation arose because the plans, when initially submitted to the Building Department, and on which the building permit was issued, were not shown to, or coordinated with, the Heating and Ventilating Division. This appears to be a common practice and the particular controversy in this instance could have been easily avoided, if internal coordination between Divisions in the Building Department had been accomplishedo An engineer has told me that he estimates that the lack of internal lateral coordination within the Building Department on plans submitted to it, costs the Heating and Ventilating contractors alone approximately $1,000,000 a year. �Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. March 18, 1969 Page 2 I have also been advised that on occassions similar internal coordination within the Building Department is not accomplished with the Plumbing and Electrical Divisions on plans when initially submitted. The explanation given for this is that frequently the Plumbing and Electrical plans are not completely developed at the time the building permits are applied for. This is frequently true, however, it appears that examination of tQe plans by the Heating and Ventilating, Plumbing and Electrical Divisions at the time they are initially submitted and being studied by the Buildng Division for issu~nce of building permits would cause detection of most inadequancies and or major conflicts with interests of other Divisions within the Building Department. This is a contention I made repeatedly, when in the Building Department, by specific recommendations on several occassions in an effort to get this accomplished. Such procedure appears to me to be basic and is practiced in many cities. Recommend a positive ·procedure be established in the Building Department that before building permits are issued, appropriate plans be referred to the Heating and Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Divisions, Plumbing Division and Electrical Division and State Fire Marshall Representatives in the Building Department for examination and coordination and that such coordination be accomplished and recorded on such plans, or on attached routing card, showing dates and individuil.s responsible. This will cause a short initial delay in issuance of building permits but will be well worth the time and effort expended by reducing conflicts, confusion, exasperating delays and costly changes later. Sincerely, Malcolm D. Jones Housing Coordinator MDJ/mc �~ ·. .. REPORT ON RESIDENCE OF TENANTS A11 · .

________,.,_______ PROJECT NO. Total No. Famib .es Intervieued --1±.,l)_O_ __ NAME . Less Than 1 yr. 1. . How long living in city limits? 1-2 yrs. .13,$ ,:'lcCJ Proi ects 2-3 yrs. 54

3 -~

/. . ,1: I Over 4-5 yrs. 5 yrs. 3-Li yrs. 93l . 2. .'/··~a 82 c, 2, • .0,;'a 115 . 560 540 317 a 1,502 . 7,7,a 3,773 2 • -0 Ci, .. . (i % 'i'/. 1 . 2. How long living in public housing? 76~8,,jfa 444 / a, 6 % In Netro~·Area (Outsicle City) - /3,{7:] Georgia , Outside ._. Metro Area 0 J, ,:?J /3./~ Other State . I I I 3. -- 'What place di.d tenant come from? ~ ~- ' 1,017 t:,t,6 1,930

'a

623 ~(,. 7 7a /.?./ /4 ~"Metro ai:ea - ,Fulton., DeKalb ., Cobb, C!a.~-t on ., Gwinnett (..inn~/.:: Cd 1 ) (:h,i-C,.")~--_. :: ..J~q _C¼. / ;J, ; 'to .- , I Nu.rnber Reason for coming to Atlanta ? 1. To get welfare assistance r:; . 2. To get b etter housing 688 ,v_ ,"-. )( . 3. To get better job l,.lQLi . 4. To live with r e l atives 700 ;,q( i · 5. To get off farm 61 6. Other reasons ( specify) 1,H15 (below ) 3 70 3 _ )( X 4. -F ., ( Show nu~rnber of t e na nt s in . each c ategory in appropriate space . ) Other princi.,a°l 'reason:::: Born in Atlanta Health reasons · Married and moved here ·--·-- -= -· - --.... --,--=-==- -- r.· - - - . - - - - -. . -- - �' ., - . REPORT ON RESIDENCE OF TENANTS . PROJECT NO • GA • 6-1 8

NAME Less Tha n 1 yr. 1-2 yrs. 2-3 yrs. Leased Housing 1) 3-4 yrs. 4-5 · yrs. Ove r 5 yr s. ,,

1

1. ,."'.7a How long living in city limits? .,s-:' ,. ~.,:o ./. ~7a 6 1 18 J.6Js 12 2. ~,o & -,,,<; ~'"" 'Cl ?71, 9 v 2. 1: i How long living in public housing? 7'l. %1::.. 248 ,j;'y,i 7,.:,-~ In Met ro*Area (Outside City) 4 24 19

3 %

Georgia, Outside Metro Area ,7?o 3 -c, ,G j, _f' /y 19 other state \ I: 3. What plac e did t enant -- come from? ,x ><. 203 ~ J, "J o/c; 87 t ~. J% 25 i(11etr o ar ea - Fulton, DeKal b , Cobb, Cl ayt on, Gwinnett . X~ (.7,, u':-lt. c,;.1"'1) ~/c: ..-; c .(. : ~ - 6>1--" ..-:....~ t. =-- - - - - . Number 1. To get wel f a re assist anc e Rea s on for coming to Atla nta ? -l-----"'-------1, r , ~7o l· 2 - 8'(,l/Ja 176 3 - .- .2.,1/?o ~ 7"7o 5 3 ·rn Metro·~-Area ( Outside City) 3 ~i.7. ,% j";3), /. :i"i, /,'$7c /.o ~ 187 11 /,a 7a ·2 / 8'. 7;i:. IJ C • I ,-0 18 3. Georgia, Outside Metro Area I other state i ' 3. ' i What place did tenant come from? ,'< •"- !. I . ·1.i1 ' 2 ~. 7 lo . / .1'; ·:t/CJ 103 LJ ,. 8"l"a .}2 ~11etro area .- Fulton, DeKalb, (?obbj Clayton, Gwinnett "-' ~ (.T,.ncJ~ C.71 ) 8 tr/ a~C?...: 'l- :r 01" / 2.. ... , ___._'~ - - - - - ____._N~b e r . 'Reas on for coming to Atlanta? 1. To get welfare assistance _ _ _ _ ,_.Q_ _ _ _ . , 2. To get b etter housing

~52 _,"- ~i:__ : I_. ( l?e 'f'a v ~I )L~.S u.f'?,.n-. c-,.-'1 r e4JCj. ·J, 3. To get better job /=:=-] 71~e.;,(.'.• • ~// Y'·Ue-.,,1cl '-'/v I c .d,-1,~ . 4. To live with r elative s 52 ..:~ l Ha.t-ln-'; ) 5·. To get off farm l v ·· 6. Ot,her reasons ( specify ) (below) -::- I 4. I,.. (Show number of te nants in each cat egory in appropriate space.)

Marriar;e;

job transfers,; . opportunities in Atlanta 0 ( J ;1. ~ -... -- - ., .... ) -- r . "" .-- -. .J S 7o ) - , . �HOUSING RESOURCES CO ITTEE Analysis of Housing Authority . Report on Residence of Tenants (3-10-69) 1. Interviews were made in 2. 4,130 families 'ere interviewed out of approximat ly 10,500 in occup ncy. This should provide a fair sampling. 3. Leased Rousing and cDaniel Str et project reflect most recent occupancy and therefore should be indicative of current trends . 4. Percentages have been calculated on Summary Report and on Leased Housing and cDaniel Street Pl•oject (sepa.rat ly) . 5. Question 1, indicates that Overall nd in cDaniel Street project les than 101, of the families have lived within the City Li its under jive years; and in Leas d Housing about 15J have lived in the City Li its under five yee~s. ditional bo,tes "5~10 yrs." and "10--20 yrs . " and 'bver 20 yrs." would giv gre ter value to Question 1. 6. Question 2 ind1cat s that overall, bout 181, of the occupants have lived in Public Housing les than ye r; in Leased Housing 781 lea th n ye r; nd in th cDaniel Street project 861, 1 ss than a ye r. over 11, 361 b va lived 1n Public Housing ov r fiv years, in Leas d Housing 61 ov r five ye r nd in th 0D nil tr t proj ct 9" ov r fiv y ar • 7. Question 3, "b t pl c did ten. nt com vague sine no p r1od of ti 1 i at o e ti in th ir 11ves S,570 ten Atlonta fro otb -r ar sand 560 wer of Atl nta. 11 projects . Th nswer to Qu stion 2 indicts th t 91.3 of the 4,130 tenant int rvi ed bav th Atlanta City Limit ov r fiv y rs nd 13 of th t n nts h v lived in Atlanta 1 t1on a should b b t e r 3,773 or liv d itbin th t only th non y rifi d prior to ny furth r r. 1t should indicat hr t n 11 it of t 1 ton year, id ncy in Atl n~a~b for in: On n xt urv y. fourth box (ln ld City t �PAGE 2 8. Question 4 Reason for coming to Atlanta" shQ s consistency throughout that : "To get better job~'- predominates . To live with relatives" - is se~ond most predo i.nant r son . "To get better housing"• is third most predo in nt reason given . How ver , any or all of the r·easons given could involve housing , as is shown by the fict that regard l ess of primary r ason for coming to Atl nta all of these now occupy Public Bou ing . �• ~~ \·-· '1:•~',X u -"1_: -~ ·:~-ff ·:• ~f: t ~ O M 1ViU N I 'F Y l~ELATJIONS CCOMMI§§JIOl\J .. ,ss ~ ESTABLISHED BY TIIE MAYOR AND THE BOA RD OF ALDERMEN, NOVEM BE R , 1966 1203 CITY HALL, ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 TELEPHONE 5 t£-H63 E XT. DR, SAMUE L W. WILLI AMS, Owirmn11 TH E II 0 "10 R ABLE S/,M ~IASSE LL, J R. , Ex-Officio Presidc:nt, Board of Aldermen COMMISSION ME.\ IB ERS MR. T . M. ALEXAN DER, SR. MR. R. BYRON ATTRIDGE MRS . SARA BAKER MISS HELEN BULLARD MR. R. J . BUT LER R EP. J A MES E. DEAN · MR. ROllERT DODllS R EP. C. G. EZZARD MR. L. L. GELLERSTEDT , J R. MR. CH ARLES IIART DR. ROB ERT E. LEE MRS. F. W. PATf ERSO N RABB I J ACO B ~I. ROTIISCII ILD MR. M. 0 . R YAN MR. J ACK S ELLS MR. PAU L Sll lEL DS MR. L. D. Sl ~IO:,./ MRS . MARY STEl'l! ENS DR. J . RA NDOLPII T AY LO R TO: Commission M e rn.b e rs FROM: Nat W e lch AJW /v , ·' S UBJECT : Report On Washington Trip on "Welfare Freeze " DATE: March 24, 19 69 ,, MR. NAT WFLCH Executil1e Director O n March 20, I took four very carefully selecte d w e lfare mot h e rs to W a shing t o n so tha t they could t e ll t heir s tori e s · dir e ctly to the ir r e p resentatives. He re ar e th e c om1nents m a d e b y each: A. Senator Talma d ge 1. 11 1 don I t thi nk t he Cong r e s s o r the state is g oing to l et p e ople go hung ry. 11 2 . H e said th a t h e h a d vote d l as t year to d e lay th e "fr ee z e" a nd "I s ee no r eas o n w hy I s h o uld n o t d o so thi s y ear ." 3 . T a l mad g e was di s tU1·b e d that a pprox imate ly 5 0% of we l fare ca ses involved husband s w ho d ese r te d th e ir fami lies. He s t rong l y fee ls t h a t Sta t e and Fe d e r a l laws on this shou ld b e II t i g h tened up." B. S ena t o r Russ e ll. H e was i ll. We t a lk e d with C har l e s C am pb e ll a t o p aid who h a d the se com m e nts: 1. Russe ll h a d r e c e ive d m or e mai l thi s y ear on the fr eeze tha n on prac tic a lly any other s ubj ect. 2. Ru sse ll b e li eves in: a. Inc r eas i n g D a y- C ar e C enter p ro g r a ms (" we h ave many g ood f ede ra l p r o g r a ms tha t a r e ina d e qua t e ly funde d ") . b. E xte nding a id to h e l p , pe opl e fi n d jobs . 3. " T h_o se w h o a i-e a ble t o w o rk s hould w o rk; tho se w ho ar e un a b l e t o w o rk sho •_ild r e c e ive we lfare b e n e fits . The diffi c ult y i s to s e pa rat e t ho se i n n ee d fro m t hos e w h o shoul d not b e o n th e w e lfar e rolls .. " 4. If it came up fo r a v ote , C a mpb e ll p re dic t e d that Ru sse ll wo uld vote t o e x t e n d th e f re eze another y e ar. C. Con g ressman B e n Bla c kburn 1. W e t a lke d wi th h im fo r a soli d hoLir . " h e lpf ul. 11 H e d e scribed our v i sit as �• ESTABLISHED BY TH E MAYOR AND THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, NOVEMBER, 19G6 1£03 C/Tl' HALL, ATL,1NTA GEORGIA 30303 TELEPHONE 5 21-,~63 EXT. ~33 DR. SAMUEL W. WILLIAMS, Owimwn THE HONORABLE SAM ~IASSELL, JR., E:x-O/ficio President, Board of Aldermen COMMISSION MEMBERS MR. T. M. ALEXANDER, SR. MR. R. BYRON ATTRIDGE MRS. SARA BAKER MISS HELEN BULLARD .MR. R. J. BUTLER REP. JAM ES E. DEAN MR. ROBERT DOBBS REP.' C. G. EZZA RD MR. L. L. GELLERSTEDT, JR. MR. CHARLES HART DR. ROB ERT E. LEE MRS. F. W. PATTERSON RABBI JACOB M. ROTHSCHILD MR. M. 0 . RYAN MR. JACK SELLS MR. PAUL SHIELDS MR. L. D. SIMON MRS. MARY STEPHENS DR. J. RANDOLPH TAYLOR PAGE 2 TO: Commission Members FROM: Nat Welch C. Cong r e s sman B en Bla ckburn 2. Although he is not pre pared to vote "yes" now, he predicted that the freeze would be extended. 3. He is co_ncerne d that the situation is g e tti ng worse and the present prog ram is not worki n g. 4. Althoug h h e b e lieve s in a b a lance d budget, h e s a id h e advoc a t e s training prog r a m s strong ly e noug h to g o into d e bt to p ay fo r them. 5. He a s ked for detailed information about children on welfare in Fulton and DeKa lb County. a. Tota l numbe r of childr en receivi n g b e nefits a ges O to 5, 5 to 10, · 10 to 15 a nd s o forth. b. Numb er of one c hild famili es , two child families , 5 and a bove , etc. c. F a milies with fathers who have de se rt e d them. d. Percenta g e of illegitimate childr en i n volved. e. F e d e ral a nd Sta t e s t a tue s o n f a th e r s w ho d ese rt. D. Congr·essman F l etcher T h om p s on 1. Conc e rne d th a t the Fede r a l G o v e rnm e nt is s p e n d i n g_ mor e mone y th a n it is taking i n. 2. "Ther e is prac tic a lly nothin g I can do. This m a tter i s in the h and s o f Wilbur M ills {Cha irman o f the Ways and M eans C omrni ttee) . He r u l es t his Comrn.it t e e with an i ron h a nd. 11 3. Tho mps on d i d practic a lly all the t a lking a nd w e h a d a c hance to say v e r y litt l e . H e s p e n t a gr e at d ea l of tim e t a l king a bou t th e we l far e sit ua tion i n N e w York C i t y. W e told h i1n, "W e h a d come to di scuss t he h ung ry p e ople in Fulton County; G ~ o rg i a . " 4. " Thi s is not j u s t a n Atl a nta or G e or g i a p r obl e m but a nationa l prob l em 5 . " T h e t a x pay ers are screaming a b o ut h ig h t a x es and re d uc i n g exp enditures. 11 6. I aske d him w as th e r e anythi ng e l se I sho uld t e ll the press on our vi s it other than his conc er n ... T h omp s on s aid, 11 1 c an ' t think of MR. NAT WELCH Executive Director a nything e l se. 11 Our visit was w e ll r e port e d in th e Journa l , Consitution, WSB - T V, WAGA - TV, and five rad i:::i s t ation s . �~Atlanta Carry ctij ~e:rs .-"as~~uagt~u I Of Freeze 'I A bi-~acial group of four Atla,1tc1 morhe rs who will be e ffected by the "welfare freeze" are going to Washington Tl urs. ~ay to per~onally tell their stories to Se nator Tal ma dge , Sena to r · Russell, Congressman Thompson, and Congressman Blakburn. The mother·s will tell their retpresentatives what t_he welare cut·back will do to their families. The trip is being sponsored by diet. The Commission c·aus on the conthe Atlanta · Community Rela tions · Commission. · "The four mothers are gn·s.s to r epeal . the welfare frer.ze represenLatives of Lhose who are before it goes into effect July l,." · trying to help themselves," stated saicl Welch . .L Nat Welch, CRC 's executive direc.,. tor who will accompany them. The "welfare freeze". on Aid Lo l"a milies with Dr,penclent Children will go into effect July l unless repealed by Congress. . "The maximum $154 monthly gt·ant ·for a fa mily is barely enough to afford sus tenance. Any r ecluction in payments would bring about untold hanlships that stagger the imagination," sn ld Welch. These h ardships could cause fu r th<'r breaking up of families, more school dropouts, malnutrition and the .·ubsequen t' showing down of 1 men t~;1 processes. Remed ial or r ehabilitative programs, which arc not always successful, are more costly than programs of prevention in the opinion of the Commission . · "The Atlan ta CommuniLy R,,lations Comm ission 1s concernecl thaL our na tiou is spending billions ctn sending a 111an to the moon and twn-thircls of the n ational buclget to pay for past, present and fu ture wars yet unless repealed, the welfan~ freeze will reduce by up Lo 4.0 per cent payments to 35,000 n111t hers and 1H ,000 C"hildren in Gear. gia· m·ost of whom do not now have enough money for an adequate 1 II -4 ~l DoCe Ui~gie El1ld '

Four Atlanta motl1ers living on welfare visited the office of Georgia lawmakers in Washing- , ton Thmsday to plead for elimi- 1 nation of the "freeze" on we!- 1 fare money schedu:led t9 take ·e ffect on July 1. Sobbing, one mother told Sen. "Herman E. Talmadge, "I'm going to !have to give up because I ca n'-t survive." · Mrs. Wanna Mitchell told the senator, "I worked and I tried to take care of my. _kids," but said the loss of her welfare money would leave her family without enough money to live. The welfare freeze as ap- . proved by Congress would lock the level _o f federal payments to slate programs at their cur·r ent level, a move that G,io;-~ia officials · says would cause as much as ,a 40 per cent r eduction in payments hy June 1970. The freeze was set to take effecl las t year, but was later delayed unlil July 1. In an effort to marshal support for elim ination of th e freeze, the Atlanta Community Relations Commission arranged -for the four mothers to go to Washington to describe t he ir plight to the legislators. 11he four also visited the of· fices of R epresentatives F letcher Tnompson, Ben Blackburn, W. S. Stuckey Jr. and Phil Landrum. Talmadge told the women tbat he had voted last year to delay the freeze and is Inclined to do so again. Two of the women told him they had been abandoned by their husbands, · and -. the senator said, "We have to implement federa l laws" to outlaw abandonment. I l / _,

- - - - .

. THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION, Fl'iclay, March 21, 1969 .... I �. arch 25 , 1969 EHORANDU TO : Mr . Cecil A. Alexander , Chair an Housing Resources C mi t tee Re my memo to you of February 24 , 1969 , (copy attached ), p l ease no the second paragraph , advising that Dan S e t fee l s th t the initiation o·f .any major updating study on housing in Atlanta should be initi· ted by tbe BRC . I gree with D n that , bee use of our progTess to date in the low•inco housing field~in ord r to maint.ain the prestige of th HRC, ny form 1 propo al for initi tion of ajor updating study a to future lo and diu · in.co e housing needs in Atl nta, should co e fro the HRC , rather tban from so e Gtber D partment or Agency . Whether or not you agr e 1th my conclusions bout the att r as su · arizad in tb last pr ~ ph of tho attached me o , s ti progr sses e 111 d finitely need updating in• formatlou on housin r quire ents s to fa 1ly inco s, typ, number, iz nd cost of units • . e imply do not hav th f cil1t1 in tb1 oft1c, a curr ntly s t up, to tte pt tudy of th nature nd scope requir d. A very good illustration of this n ed is the r qu t today fro th N tion 1 0Tb n Coalition to provid by April 3 n ti at ot antici.p t d nub r of ub idized hou ing uni ts to b constructed in Atlant in th n xt tbr e, y which 1 bt be o 1tt d to r et s bly progr ( att ch d n w clipping fro this .rnin • Atlanta Co titutiod. I h d bop d th t th n w direction wbiob w a co ·1tt e bould t would b forth co ing betor tbi ·, but app r ntly it b n ' t. 1 feel that ric 111 A ociat s is 11 \J lifi d ny ttr to pr par co r h n iv updatl bo i stu y ad I found lit 1 · with wbioh to d a r in th ir outlin prop al. Ho v r, r. Gt f ls th t rio Hill sooia a / I �Mr . Cecil A. Alexander rob 25, 1969 Page 2 . does not give recognition or credit to othe:rs for being familiar itb tho Federal Housing programs , hich he, of course , certainly is . I tbi -, however , that in a study all of these progra swill have to be considered and nalyzed in order to p1·ovide a logical basis for alt rnativ.:;,s and conclus1ons · reaohed . · I suggest that tbe Eric Hill propos 1 b placed on the Agenda of our next HRC Executive Committee meeting and form 1 ct1on be · tak n on it by our Co :i.ttee . ·At this stage,. l ould be inclined to reco end favorable act i on by ou~ Committee for a request to the ayor and Board ot Aldermen for sueh study . M lcolm D. Jones Housing Coordin tor MDJ/ mc Encls: 1. 2. Copy emo, Feb . 24, 1969 News clippin - Atl nta Constitution , rch 25, 1909 �. ' £;,. 7 ; ;.c.,. t P Februnry 'l'O: 24 v 19G9 Mr e Ce c i l A. Al c :irn ndcn:, Chnh.--m~ n . Hous i ng Res ources Co. mittao Attn c hod ( Encl. l) is c opy o f Mcn:io f r om Er i c l.ill Assoc i n t cs to Coll ier Glnd in p eut i t l ed " f.:.;;;pm-:cJod Moans To Lowo i:• Cos t Ilousi ncs 11 • Collier bns d is c 1sned tbis briefly with Da n Sweet with v ie~ t o undort nki ng an up<latcd a 1d oxp3ndod study of the housin~ ~or t ion of t he CIP. T~is ~ouli pre~ umnbly bo ~ono by Eric llill AsGociotes . , . I / Dau fcsls p and so de I , t ha t tho iuit i ntion of nny mn j or upcl 21ting study on hous ing i n At lanta shoul d bo i ni ttatcd by th~ llousi nc Reuour ces Committee • r:ric Hill Associotos i s p0:r 1nps the best housing , pln . n i nrr c onsul t~nt :\.rm I 1 now an tho1·e l ittle c011tq • i1c<l :tn t 10 ntt ~ched proposal w t h , . ·doh I disagi:ce ., Bo mvo •, i t ,eems '-"'Or, ewilat :t u--, appr,j:n·iatc to iuit :..1te a11other c nj or stu y •;,; wu wo ':rn ve no t -Tct b oon able to l rop l<. neut the 1~c-!Ot1?.'>.Cn<fa tionu of the Pl"ovious tu-dy , al th o~c~ we a?e fully a~nre of t~o m3jor fnct o~s which o-e st ill holdin~ up mplc~ontat ion of t ho pro •ious st 1dy . Tho f ollo~i ng arc s o~e o~ tho ,, ore i opoi- t n 1t of t'1ose : '· ,b~ a. 'rho num "c.~r ono p:r.oblcro of cou1·so is gat ting site approvnls . b. Other dif.:ficulticw \,hich trn ve no t been ad oquntol , corrcc .,cd rrn.d .\Ol ' Vihich ._,pecif ·' c rec or..ir.mnt;n tions \:1Cl'C t.10 o i.orr,mlly by the Uousina Rcsou~ces Comcittoe to tho Zoning nnd Plnnnin~ ~nd Devo lopcent Comm i t t ees o:Z t h 0 Do::t:rd of Al ch::1"'mcn , Au~ust 2 e 1968 , include : 3. " Hcv:loion. o i: t ho 0:.:•d t m1nco govoruili:t non-conforming u3o o f J.nn<l to allo·, structur nl c hn~~es in i mproving dwolliilg urdt::.; to t1~et r e(!Lih·emonts of t ho Uounint: Code .. " �I I I I I i.i r o Ccc: 1 I~.. .l\lexn ~ae~: ~;,2, 11 1 969 } 'c J"U~l l 'y' Pnr;c 2 I I 'fJ~• r-"":'l-0 , ,. ,..,.,.,,_ '"°" •<.~ CA ....1 ,.,,..1 t'~• • ~1~ ._ .., .... p::1rttcula!-:-ly in t h0 l JJJH...IJfi1r::; 0 Viur:. " C""1 o ·u ,, ·_,,,.,...., -1· h 'v ..... •:0 - ' l . ' ' . J )JL.,;.i...- <.,,i, ~ 1:..'.l City ~nd 1cr:.ho1·· Os"CDf) outsi ·ie the 1 :odel Ci'i;ies m.•cn o ' i (~ hia b e i ng only· p,:a• t i a lly i mple~euted UOWo ) 6,. " A<len:; i on o f n l:ov· Ge<- c~ist.:--' ct soning cm Ji;he n w L and Use m~p,. t o map b nsed i uclud0 ::i aqu::1 te areas f or l ow=:..ncome homing." Thero nre c avoral related doc1_ents which ha·e n di rec t bearing on this matter ~ ~he more port inant o1 these aro : 111 T he ('.'econd Annual Section) uhicb Ro1m1•t (FU'I'URE DIRECTION pelled out certain r ecom~endnt 1ons :for f utui ·o c ou.1..se ox action f c1· t ho 0 hous.1_ng p rog :i.•ffm and c:illled for a i.'<nrisod statooc-ut of mis sion fro " the t1nyo1.,. 1or the Co:rn11i.ttc e . Copy o f drnft pi·oposod ( 2 - 10- 6 9 ) for revised m· saion is a~t~cled (Encle 2 ) . It c ontninad p a mon~ c thor t hinCTS p s u~aes tion t hat a j oint study of tho l ousing neAde of tiG Ci t y b a c onducted by t he Hourr · ug Author i Jcy 0 P!aun ng Departmon-'c and t he HouB. n:; Ucsou,.,ccs Comn it tae . ciuch :s;tudy m:lc~ .... t au s t tute for , 01• be a D rbed iu " t .1e pl"o o~ed study by Er · c Hill Associa t es ·2. 0 omc _suer;entions fol: o 1;_1or.o p1~octica 1 P ,pro~ch t o sol m.:, the lcw-inco1':!o hous i n:; problems Ul'O c ont ained in P.!cmo t o D:m S~ca t , Fob U:ll7 11, 1969 , copy attached (Encl c 3)o 3. Proposal for specific hous .. ug oncl ~~elato nctivitioG for t ho recently npproved Urban O~~e1•vatm:y az-o con-ca ined in IJ~mo to ii1· . Sweat , Octo ,cl' 31 0 l DG8 ,, c opy attached (Enc lo 4 ) . It i s doubtful 1 o~cvor , t hut ~11 of t he proposod activities ca n be Essumod by t ho U1·bnn Observator y» ccrtninly not initiully. 4. '£he llousing Coo1·£Jtnnto1• h¢S ropG.1tcdly pointed o ut thG nocd f m.·, and ruqucstod t ho services o:Z" a Stati.-3 ticnl Clerk to keep up-t o-data nnd period. c:m lly rcrn:ouuco tho Low-ll1cor::o Housi~1 Invcntoi'y Hoport o. Th::it i r.1901:tont 1~cp01:t csnnot be l;opt cu1·r0ut i t hrough e¾ir.;ting fncil:ltic.., o:f the Hounina nesou;;•ces Cotl:!litteo office ., Just i·eceutly, as frequently " �Ur o CccJi.l ~\ ., A {'mmcot' Fobrut1ry 24 p 1DG9 Pnbc 3 X W:i:l.:.i c ~ 1l ed " pon by .. r..;j. ,;y .,,:;,.< . , ,,.~,,._._ ""'il ,~,,... ., <·;-,· A-,,.A ....., ...:t , ...11 t , ..Ll...:. O z-':'icit>d tu ' cu:i::-:~n1.. c.v.- ,-..-··.·,1 ,~ , u-,,.,~.,r ~., ..;... e-"'· . . u l.n4\,,,'- le, cr•·nr• ·;-.,.,i ~\l.t..Vu. .... ... ~ ~,-~ v .. .... .~iv.&~. and Xn Planning in t .1~ Lo~·~ ··< nco:1e Eou.siug Px·cgrnn a Tho best I c oula 6ffcr wns to provico ~i3ur~s as o.f Novcm,er 15~ 1968 " 1 hove not been ~hlo to c on~ U. o a moi·e ·oce-n t Y-c ;02~ t ~ ~l 1thm1r,:.1 9 i ~c i s k nown th~t t bu f l f~t rc2 h!'aVO ch ... n~otl "C;ons i der~lb ly s:h:~ce the novc-,;i,br.n : 15 1·opo1:t o " 1 5. Attr.whe.cl ( Encl ., 5) ~.:e cople::i of r~cnut fie1:. os fron thir:; off ice to ,.Ji· o ~3otte1·i'ield of t he Hot sing Authc:t·ity an. e."fot't -to ob :;~in SC!:le iu E:~sscrn.t i a l c ~ t n p0:r t~ niri.G to Public n.o s :(.ng and to encournGe c oordiu~tion efforts town-d i nSU'.i:"ing relwibi l i tnt:1.on nf c z i s t . n~ subst~ud:u""d u 1it-G, .from wh ich occt,Ypan ·s t~ove i nto Publ ic Housingo In acld;tt 4 n-n , tho CIP coutnim~d a specific t · (H::0°1;-1m11dntion for establisl:n~mnt of a Housing ncsourct.s 1Jux·eiru . l;;-:t1·i1c'i; of tho p:ro.posa l i s at t ~ched {Encl o 6 )0 About 2 years aco, I provi, ed 4r. s ~oa t witb ~ b rief conc ept,. i nclur in.n· t entative propo.. od or.gnnizntiona l st."nctu "o and per s onnel c ons idore d ne cossary · to i uplcmont sue~ en ~ct1~_ty . If aetnblir-;;ho-d, tlmt or,1'n-n ization should p ro :1bly fun.ct ~o n undm.• tho guid~nco ::md no o facili t of t ho llousing Rf:',E.O\.L'c cs Co~mi t t oo s, w th a. s eci1:tc L.onslng Committee of t h ' "'oard o f P.luol'r..0:1 d o~;igirntcd t o stec1~ ond c 2 · i~y the program ' s rict ivitic throu·~h. th.-~ Bo~;rs...d of Ald ~r t~u to f ruition . no · l .iing the l ocn l t winistrnt on fs des ~c to reduco ro~.or t hat ~dJ Dopart~ents and in order t o avoid ~ppenrnuces of ompira uildin:t , I ll~1ve thus far i.-o:fra· ned -1'ro. rcc:omt~e,ntliq~ astrn.>lishrcnt of n v-ousinz nin.•::rou or ncp~1·tmcnt . Howevcrk' , Plthou~h a good ...,tri1.·t h~s b-ncn r;mdo j n ho4. sin6 , I :fo ... l t h<.:t v-;o lltoiVC bu:-\;,ly r.;;cr.Dtchr; d tho smi.·fnc,:> 0£ tho o~era l l llous:tn~ 110,~os .of tho City dn:-r~ug the nox... 20 years; rnd ~hat t ~is pro 1cm c an bast bo attnchod t~rougl ~u incronoe in P nnr.. - elovnt1on of P llousiur.; ncsou .. cea .cac:il:1. tics ~- Pe:&:lmpP tl.o ti1.1e has now co;.io wh011 wa should sc,:io•lf'; 1y consider cxnnusiou of sue ·1 facilitic·· nnd fo llow the r ucor.:w1Jn,1nt i ons o-': the CIP y oa-tn't>l shiuz 5 smull Ilov.sin,.._. Bu~c-nu or Dc partr.1ont. I n suemuu•y , tho propo.sn l of. E-ric Hi.11 Asno,ciato .... is in g;3norn.1 pr~ct:tcnl . HmHJVc·:r , I ennaot aoo any 1-,a~:-tic\ l::11" advnn.t~ge of such ~dditionnl study at thin tima, u~lc~s t here is, ar wi ll be, ample ox·gnnh.!at ion. and poli tionl structure for impJ.crnon.tntion of its :fii:,.uinf.S . 'fhis rlcos not exist now and r;hould oe n p""orcqtdsit.c to iuit.:tnt:ton of such n major now study. noco~m:,.em,ntion. ( j,f oadc) !or ouch or·,nnizntiou and po1.ttic::il st::uctu:r~ should , in rny opinion, origimlte with tho IJ.ousin~ f-oscm1·cea Con.':li ttoe" �~r o Cocil A. Al~x~ndor . Feb~unry 2~a 1 DG9 P;;1ge 4 -a'<n lcoI" Do Jones 1 Hous inff Coordina t or MDJ/ me Enc ls :1 of..:;(p andcd Means 'r'o Lower Cc-7Jt J1ou::; :.. t1g 2~Dr nf t datad Februa ry lO j 1968 3.Memo d n tod Feb~uary 11, 1gs 9 4 . McMo detod Octo Jor 31, lS GB 5o 1i!e·. os <lnted ,.; (·:b:..·um.:y l l p 1969 6. r:.::::tract f l'Ot \ CIP cc: Mr . Dau E o Sweat; Jr. . �,. /. ·-/ • I • C.-.1. s·,1 , ·.,, ;(-).• l l[v 11 r1 j/!1ift tl./i_ ([)J!J§ ./iJ5 Tl/J ll 'I lt; 0 0 JJJy By WARREN WEAVER JR. I\ /! ' 6 Die in Cra§h ·of RAF Plane . . ,' .:....,. / ' 1 :::;,,- ·-,,,, Tr /T o Jf7/ (lJHiiJ!J TUJ[J,Jf!: JPa<01 rm ll[t@([)! Romney, told reporters Monday tbat the key to the lleW experiWASHINGTQN - The Nixon ment would be the encourageadministration is at work on a ment of mass production tech. new housing program that will . niques in an industry where attempt to spur competition be- both the laws and th e customs . · tween giant corporations for the have tended to produce build:right l.o build hundreds of thou- i.ngs one at a time in the pas t. . sands of low-cost uni ts all over ·. the cotmtry. By pooling the separate housing needs of the major states The secretary of Housing and and cities into a single mass Urban Development, George W. market, Romney indicated the nation could make profitable use of the assembly line system, originated in his former industry, automobiles, in his former city, Detroit. Romney estimated that the FAIRFORD, England (UPI) . plan could produce from 250,000 A Royal Air Force transport to 350,000 low-cost housing units plane crashed and burned Mon- a year, but he said th at I.he first day during a training exercise, of them would probably not beand a spokesman for the Brit- come avail able for about three ish Defense Ministry said all years. six men aboard were killed. "You don't des ign an autoThe plane was a four-engine mobile in a few months, it takes · U.S.-built C130 Hercul es that had a couple of years," the form er president of American Motors been sold to the RAF. The Defense Ministry spokes- said. men said the plane crashed The housing secretary has about 200 yards short of th e run- talked in.formally with governors way at the RAF's Fairford Base. of a number of large states and (Copyrlgbt 1969 by The Nm York l'imcs)

_

' some leaders of the contruction trades muons. He said he was encouraged by their favor· able reaction. Romney said that the proposal would not involve any federal spending beyond that already planned for the mortgage interest subsidy program voted by Congress last year. Enough money should be available even if the Vietnam war continues, he added. He said his plan called first for federal authorities to take a kind of informal inventory of housing needs, in each major state and city. · "If we bring together sufficient volume of demand," Romney said, "then we can go · to the national corporations and say: 'What can you produce for this market?'" The corporations would be invited to submit cost figures competitively, as though they were bidding on an actual construction contract. State and city housing authorities could then contract with the lowest bidder for construction of their share of the national inventory. • I ' �,, MINUTES SP EC IAL MEETING HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE WXT:I ZONING COMMI TTEE AND PLANNING ANO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF T }IE BOIi.RD OF ALDERMEN ilugust 2, 1968 The Special Meeting of the ~Jousing n.esources Committee with the Zoning Comittee and the 'Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen was held at 2: 00 Friday, in the Aldermani c Chambers, Second Floor, Ci ty Hall. p.~;, .I Agenda, invitational not i c es , mi nut es t aken by the Planning Dep~rtment, resolutions, ~nd other related documents are attached to the file copy of the minutes. j}_ttendance by Members of t he Board of .fUdermen was as fol lows: Present: l Rodney M. Cook , Chairman George Cots:::iL:is Charles Leftwich G. Everett Millic~n . .' Jack Summers Q, v. Williamson Sam Massell , Jr .~ President Absent: / John- ~ Flanigen R~chard C. Freeman E. Gregory Griggs Alderman Rod ney IA~ Cook opened the meeting by _telling the group the purpose of the meeting. He then introduced Mr~ Cecil A~ Alexander, Chairman of the Housing Resources Committee. i r ) Mr. Alexander stated that the purpose of the Housing Resources Committee was to assist by all possible means the construction of 1G~800 units of low ~nd moderate income housing. These units were to serve ~s relocation for persons to be moved by urban renewal, new roads, schools and other government action. I , t J \ Mr. Alexander urged the Zoning Committee and Planning and \ Development Committee of the Board of fldermen to support the ' :\, following (a copy rif his pres entation is ~ttached to the file copy of these minutes) ~ . t 1. Establishment of a Committee of Aldermen to be responsible for housing. 2. Revise the Building CodESto permit innovations in new techniques and materials , particularly in Experimental Housing in the Model Cities area. �:?age 2 3. Revise the Non-Conforming Use Ordinance to permit structural changes in residential units, to meet requirements of the Housing Code. 4. 5. 6. Stepped-up Urban Renewal program in existing slum areas. 2,000 more Public Housing units. ,; : . (' Jcp-1 ~( , 80-cvd a{ A/,Jww-.,,gwi "',..dh,,,,n\.c:4 1 ) 1 ,-,, ~~1 rA ~"4-S. i Upd ate d District Zonine Map , including adequate areas for low~income housing. Draft Res ol utions for presentation to the Board of 4ldermen to implement the above were presented to the Chairmen of both 4ldermanic Committees (and have since been pr ovided each member of the Board of ~ldermen). Resol u tions and Letters of 29 p r om inen t Civic, Relieious and Educ~ t:iona l o:rganiz a t j_o~s , s u pport i ng t he I-Ious ing l~esou::rces Co mmittee proposal , were pr esented and hav e bee n provid ed eac h Dl dermen . (L i st of o r ganizatio ns ~nd d o cument s 2itt 2 c h e d to fil e c o py of these Minutes) . Mr . Alexand e r th en call e d u po n the attending members o f support ing organiz ations to stand to be r e cogni zed. Ab o ut 150 people r es p onde d . Mr . f lexander then intr o duced Mr . Denver Gr a y, Vice -Chairman o f t he ~~;[ ousine and Redev elopment Com-r.iittee of the l' tl ant3 Chambe r o f Comoerce. Mr . Gray ~ t2ted t hat the Ho u s ing ~ nd Redevelopme nt Committee is t he Chamber task f or ce f or dealinE with all mat ters pe rtaining to housin8 in o ur c omrnuni ty . r;his includes a number o f ar e a s: The Urban Ile nevi ~ l P:r oe;ram, Pub lic xlous ing , Code Enforceme nt, and the many othe r government pr o grams related to h o using; t hat t he Comrai ttee's ultimate goal , cond e nsed to a single p hra se, is to help make availabl e dec e n t h o u si ng for all o ur pe o ple . He stated that the Chamber 's position is tha t immediate ste ps s hould be taken to ad opt an updat e d Land Use Plan for the City of ftlanta , from which a n ew Zoning Ordinance could be evolved . Such a zonine plan , SEid the Chamber , should provide for adequat e land for multi-faraily housing and o pen u p land f o r increased densi t y o f housing in all quadrants of the Sity . Mr. ~l exander then introduced Dr . Benjamin E . Mays , Co-Chairman of the Housing Resource s Committee. Dr. Mays stated th~t the Aldermen should update the District Zonine Map of the City and provide ad eq u ate lo-cations for low-income hou sing requirements . He also stated that the people should be put in different sections of the City only where it is economically pos sible. Mr. I' lexa nd e :r then introduced M:".'G. fl Glenn :Parham, .Jr. President �' of the League of Women Voters. Ghe sta ted that it would seem mandatory to zone areas ~n all quadrants o f the City for different types of hou sing - low - rent , multi-family , etc . Without this dispersa l , the burden b ecomes too grea t on certain areas - as regards schools, recreational facilities , s h opping complexes , etc . TNi th dispe:rs 2l some K'esidents wou ld be b etter able to s .ec ur e transportation to reach j ob s in o u tlying a r e as . Sound planning and judiciou s zon ine rev i s i ons are necess a ~ J f or orde rly growth . Delay in acting up on a new zoning plan wi ll compound the problems . She urged that carefu l attent i on to b e givmto design (bea u ty and living q ua lity) - ope n sp 2ces and pa:d;: land - supportive community services to reduc e dange r of i sola ti on a nd i n sec urine cooperation o f b o t h new and o ld res idents . Mr . fl exander t h en a s ked f o r comments fr om the diffe rent o rganizations o n the HRC pr o p os al . M~ . Ot i s Thorpe, P~eside n t of the Erapire Real Estate Board sa id ·t ha t the Er.1p ire _rte a l Ee ta t e _,o a :i'.'d s u pports well pl anned and proper z oning to meet tis h o u sing needs o f ~tlanta . We fir mly b elieve that better housing generate s more. jot s , c cono6ic gr owth, r es ul ti ng in cit i ze n p2rticipati on in raising the sta nda rd of l iv ing o f all At l anta ns . We respectfu _ ly req u est y o ur s u ppor t o n t his proposal . Mr . Bob Flanigen , Exec u tive ~ecretary , ntlan t a Branch o f t h e rfotio n ail /:ssoc iatio n for ;:.dvancement of Co l o red Peop le ( N.l}.ll.CP ) stated tha t t he NPflCP feels tha t t he West o f l t la nt a already has too many l ow-income h o u s ing un its . He said tha t t he NlfCP does not wan t acy raore housinz uni t s in t he West area , but perhaps in other sectors of the City , and want s assurance t hat ad diti o nal devel o p me n ts will not be appr o ved in t he western part of the Ci ty unt il other secto~s eet their e q uitable share . mr . John 8teinichen , III , Cha:rmen f Interfaith , i nc ., stated that immediate steps should be ta ~en by the Ci ty of ftlanta , throu Eh its Pla n ning De partment and the Bo ard of Alde r men , to adopt an up0ated La nd Use Plan , and that a new Zoning Ordinanc e, based on the Land Use Plan , should be prepare d for s ubm issi on t o the Board of f'ldermen at t he e ar liest possible time . He al so s t 3 ted that equal recomr.iendation should be given to the Zoning Text , because o f the fuod plain and other considerations . ~ I Wr . Milton C . Poster , Pr es ident , Home Builders hssociati on of Metropolitan Atlanta , Inc . stated that t he Home Bu ilders nssociation calls upon the Board o f 1\ ldermen to move immediately toward study implementation and devel opment of a modern ordinance of land use ' controls , giv ing due regard a nd priority to the necessity for increased and flexible d e nsity in all residential categories whic h wil l e nc o urage the production of architectural types ' known as multi-family buildings , town hou ses, row houses, and condominium home ownership o f any or all of such properties. 1 �P age 4 r:Ir . D:12me Be ck , Ex ec i t ive Di rec to r o f the Community Co uncil o f t he ftlan t a frea , Inc . s t ated t hat the City o f ~tlanta s h o uld a dop t immediately an upd at e d Land Use Plan a nd a n e w Zon i n g Ordinance , permi tt i n g the dev e l o pmen t o f l o w- income h ous ing o n s everal si t es in all quadr a nt s o f t he Cit y o f htlan t a . hlr . Geore0 Rice , a privat e citiz e n, talke d ab o ut the Railr o ad ~v enue s it e. d e s aid that he was :n fa vo r of d ev e l o ping t his area , but that the area was mo re s uitable t o s ing le- fa mi l y h o u s ing o r garden t ype apartments rat~e r than high -rise f o r the elde r ly . Mr . C . D . Lc Be y fr c m the ftlanta Real Es ta t e Bo ard s tated that the Atlanta Real Es tate o oard sup p o rts a new Zo ni ng Ordinance f o r the City , wh i c h ~ o u l d u pdate and ac ~n o wledge the tr emend o u s changes that have occured since 195{ , a nd w~ich wo Lld s tabiliz e land u ses for the futu-e; that it i o not o n ly essenti~l but l ong ove rdue ; that immedi£ite steps chould b e ta k en by the Ci t y o f ltlanta , thr o ugh its : lannine Depart ment and Bo a r d o f tld e rm0n , t o ad o pt an updated Land Us e Plan . ~l d erman ~ od n ey M. Co o k then intr oduced Mr . Co llier Gladin , Planning Director . ~e s tat ed that 10 , 800 uni ts re c co dcd for rel o cation ; that the first year ' s hou sing ne e ds have been me t , but all t h e pr ob lems have n ot b een so lv0d . He als o stated that Public :'.lo u sing reso1.11·ces n eeded to b e i ncrea s ed . The pr o posed plan s u ggests ideas of continuing e ff ots f o r dispersal f o r the City and re~ion around the City . 8e said that the Federal surpl u s land should be u sed for rel o cation of f amil ies ; that timing of buildin~ of new housing unit s should c oincide with the displacement o ~ pe o p le becaus e of Urban Renewal , roads , etc . ; that the Planning Dcpartnent is ready to a o s:st and s upp ort the 3 o u sing

Resou rcGs Commit tee j_n its effort .

.-1e state d t hat t h e Lc ind Us G

Plan s h o uld be set up with an adequate araount of land that will meet t he dens ity o f pe ple in the n e xt 15 years; that changing of the Zo ning District Map is a good sound planning principle . Mr . Llexander rec o gni zed t he presence of both Co-chairmen of the :-Iousing Resources Commi ttee , D1· . ;Janford 5 . f:.. twood, Pr es ident of Emory University a nd Dr . Be njamin E . Nays, Pr es ident Emeritus of More~ o usc College (w ho had already s p o k en) . flderman G . Everett Millican q uestioned Mr. Alexander on sev0ral points of t he proposel and st ated that enough h o u sing units s hould be built to t a~e care of displac ement and gave his views on several 2spccts of the program . Mr . f.lexander stated that betwoen ~cvember l , 1967 and June 30 , 196D, 2 , 903 people 2pplicd for Public :;::rousine; in f. tlanta and 141 o ut siders were t1rne d down b eca use of the residential requirement put on Public }lo u sing. �• Page 5 Alderman Rodney M. Cook stated that time is of the e s sence . It is tiCTe to do somet hi rg about this p:roblem now . Meeting wa s adj ourne d at 4 : 00 p . m. Respect fully sub mitt ed , rJri.-<i{lc.,,eJ:j"vVi.di:2:r \j,, l - " ~ L~8 lco l m D . Jq.ryas Eou s ing- Coor(H.n8 tor me Encls : As Listed ( with fil e c o py on l y) �Apr il 1 , 1969 r . B Tb rt . ranklin , Ex cutiv Assoc i t Urb n Co 11t1on 1819 H tr t , N. W. bing on , D. c . 20006 r . Fran lin : Der your l tt r of arch 18 to r . Cell A. lg nd r , b ti at for your April 3 to p1ovide you 1th Atl nt " Ei not1ti d you b o nno't bich l infor d Mr . lex nder co y b r C , 000 3,0 0 To l ot r bicb mi ht follo ..• lug lly , al r , 500 u uni.ts to b 11 of t a C tt r d Bou 1 bly pro 1 Cr lY t lcol ou i .... • .c 1. txndr / Mr. Dan E. Seat , J r . ~ Mr. George Aldridge k d ting , t d. D. Jo C or 1 tor ) 1t cl r �1 ·· . 1 ~ I I '. , • ", ~ I • • J l .• : 161 9 H S tre e t, N .VJ. ' ·-" ' Wa sh i ng ton . D . C. 2000G T el ep h o ne : (202) 223-9500 CH A I RM/>.N : John W. Gardn er CO-CHA I F ~/,EN : Andrew H8isi-.:eli i A . Ph1 ii p RJnclo!ph ' 'I .. ,I!.

. I 1· March 18, 1969 I, MAR 21 1969 ROTH SCHl LD 3: PASCh.\L ATLANE, f: !::J: '. S:;\ Cecil A. Alexander, F.A,I.A. Finch, Alexander, Barnes,. Rothschild & Paschal 44 Broad Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Cecil: In my letter to you of March 4, I mentioned that we would be making plans to follow up on the February 26 mee~ing with those representatives of cities and states who expressed an interest in the market assembly program. 1 ·A 1 J \ ff -~ , . ';; / · .;' 1 ~1· / \ ! \'· l -~· ,., ,1.: \J .{: Accordingly, we are presently at work refining our proposal for your revi e w and comment. We hope to send this proposal to you shortly and to meet again to discuss it in detail. A tentative date of April 3 has b e en / chosen for th~ meeting, whi~h will be held from 10: 00 a.m. / I to 3:30 p.m. in the Lawyers Club, at 1815 H Street, N.W., 1 ! Washington. I hope that you can clear your calendar to

1,

atte nd. It would be helpful if in the meantime you could make some estima t e of that portion of anticipate d subsidi z ed housing units to be constructed in your city over the ne x t thre e years which might be committe d to a market assembly program. This estimate will enable us to conduct a realistic discussion on the 3rd , I would appreciate your letting me know at your ea r lie s t conve nienc e whether y ou can attend the me eting . Co r d~ially, / 1 t/ ; \.-, ../" I(.; ~ Herbert M. Frank li n Exbcutive Assoc iate HMF : sc i �. March 27, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : r . Cecil A. Alexander , Chairman Housing Resources Committee · At the arch 25 meeting of the ayor with Department Heads and Agencies re.s ponsible for carrying out Atl nta ' s Su er Program in the six core areas . I presented the HRC plan d~ted 3-20- 69 , copy of which has been furnished you . Item 11 , Promotion of Emergency Housing, struck a very responsive chord ith Ann os s , who has suggested I discuss the matter further with Al Bos . It has occurred to me th t perhaps it might be ell for you to appoint an Ad Boe Committe of about 3 emb rs of the HRC to look into this propos 1 and to come up 1th a report of findings nd 1·eoomm ndations ou th matter, t our M y eeting . I sugg st th t the r port include uch items as: a. b. c. d for such housing. Extent - numb r nd bedroo co position of untts. Whether ne or xisting structures should be c n ider d · (I 1 vor u ing exi tin Perhap VA Ho plt 1 48 structures 1th ould b pr ctical.) ini um iteration. d. Maxi um period of occup ncy by any on rh p 3 ontb) f. ould ad inist r? (U yb th lv tion Ary could do it.) T nt tiv r nt l to b ch rged and m thod of p nt, to. ln tb1 connect1on igbt or t 1 t no and bett r ~ ult tro our ould ssign v rious proj ct of our u r 11 Ad oc Co itt to wo~k on, r port f t b ily r to �r. Cecil A. Alexnder March 27, 1969 Page 2 Examples from our Summer ~ogram items might include: 3. i. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. ork fo~ rezoning for Browntown Road Turnkey Project. Encourage bom ownership. Encourages aller developments of mix d type Publio Housing. Strive for tangible evidence of physic 1 improve ents. in Vine City during 1969. ork with Model Cities staff in expediting physic 1 evidence of experimental housing this ye r. Push e r ·l y rezoning of entire C.i ty. Work for elimination of slum pockets through NDP or by Prlv ~e Enterprise. From time to time other proj cts such as study of future housing ue ds; profit ' ble utilization of the Orb n Obs l'V tory to bests rv n eds of the HRC nd utiliz tion of City own~d Pl"Operty for PUblic Housing (Such res _s undeveloped portions of La ewond rk, th City Prison arm, etc.).would be appropri t for p-pointment of mall Ad Hoc Co itte s to work on. l believ th t such ssign nts would dev lop g»od re ults, b welco d by our C itte e bers · nd · ould iv th m feeling of orth hil p rtloip tion o.d •oco plisb ent. Siner lyr al.col I>. Jone · Housing Coo~diD tor J/ C . �-~ / / l 1 ae y ) blic Administration 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 659-916 5 \ March 2 7 , 1969 M~ . Morel and Smi th Southern Reg iona l Counc i l, I nc. 5 F o r s y t h S t r ee t , ·N .W . At lanta , Ge org ia 30303 De a r Mr . Smith : Th is letter is to ap poin t you to the At lanta pane l f ormed by the Ac ademy to f unct i on wi th res pect to our r e search contr a c t with the U.S. De par t ment of Housing and Urb an Develo pment . Enclosure 11 All_ i s a copy of the HUD announc ement re garding this project. Th e c ontra c t c a lls for us to s tudy the criti c al decisi onal and aqm ini s tra tive asp e cts , prima rily f rom t he lo c al point of view, of .fo ur HUD .iss"Istecfur'ban program s : q turnkey h ousing,2 inner - city open s pace, Sba si c sewer and wa ter fa cil i ti e s gr ants, and .,Jnon - p r of it s ponsored new housing under Se c tion 22l ( d) (3 ) -- a r ep lac ement f or s tudy of 22l (h ) . These pro grams will be ana l ysed from point of ori g in to poiµ t of impac t i n six (o r s ev en ) ci ties, with At lan t a s i rvi ng a s t he pilot study. · The pro je ct wi l l ti e i n with r e l a ted HUD contracts awarded to t h e Na ti onal League of Citi e s to evolve a s ystem of urban ob servatories ( in a ddition to Atlanta , f our othe r de signa t e d ob s e rvatory c itie s are among t ho s e ci ti e s which we have recormnend e d to HUD f or inclusion in our stu dy )' , and to Rutge rs Univer s ity t o study ways of a chieving a more effe c tive stati r o l e in urban progran1s. Dr . Mo r ris W. Co l l ins, Jr., Dir_e ctor of the . Institute of Government, Univ er si ty of Ge org i a , is c onv eno r of t he Atlanta panel. Other pane lists are l i ste d on Enc l osure 11 B11 • One or t wo additional members may be appointed. As knowl e dgeab l e At l ant ans, t he pane l will be a s ked t o o r ient, i nf orm , advise, and help di rect t he t hree-man t eam wh ich will be in Atlanta fr om Ma rch 3 1st t hr ough April 11th . I n ad d i tion to myself, this team is compo se d of Mes srs. Elias B. Si l v erman and Char le s R. Warren. There wi l l be two pane l me e t ings, t o e ach of which this l e t ter of a pp o-intmen t is i s an i nv i t ation . These meet i ng s wi ll be he l d at Georgia Sta t e Co lleg e on: ,.....---.... Wednesday , q>..gr il 2nd\ from ( luncheon i n 't.1\e- "As"semb l y Activitie s Bu il ding, wi th the Fa cul t y Lounge of the Building); and , , Noon until about 3: 00 P.M. Room, 2nd F l oor of S tudent the me e t i ng continuing in Bu sine s s Administration �l_ Mr . More land Sm ith r-~arch 27 · 1969 2 .

Thur s d 2. y, lp . ril lO _t=l).. from 9 :0 0 A.M. until middle or l~te 2.fternoon ln the President 1 s Conf erenc e Room, with luncheon. in t he Assemb ly Room. At the Ap ril 2nd mee ting , t he panel wi ll be asked to revi ew and c o:-:-.r.,e;-:t upon our Pilot Research Design (Enclosure uc 11 ) and Tentative Int e rview Sc:-iedule (Enclosure uD 11 ), to su;;ge.st ways in which we might most · produ ctively pro ceed , and in general to gui de our efforts in Atlanta. We have also developed a Progr~~ Sw-nmarization aµd Status Report on the selected pro gra.'il.s (Enclosure 11£11 ). The Apr il 10 th meeting will be devoted to an analysis and interpre. t ati on of our data and to t he f ormulation of findings and conclusions. An honorari um of $25 per meeting attended will . be provided to you 1 as a member of the Atlanta panel. A.national pane l h as been app ointed to further guide and evaluate our eff orts in all selected study citie s. This panel is composed of: Hr . William G. Colman, Execut:i.ve Director, Advisory Corranission on Intergovernmental Relations Mr . Porter W. Homer, County Manager, Dade County, Florida The Honorable Arthur Nafta lin, Mayo~ of Minneapolis Professor Ernest C. Reock, Jr., Di re ctor, Bureau of Government Resear ch, Rutger s University Pr ofessor Wallace S. Sayre, Eaton Profes sor of Public Administration, Department of Political Science, Columbia .University Profess o r Carleton F. Sharpe, Visiting Research Professor and Consultant, University of Hartf6rd Dr. Gilber t Y. Steiner, Director of Governmental 'Studies, The Brookings Institution On behalf of the Ac ademy and the national panel, I wish to express our appreciation for your willingness to participate in this important .project. lft/A/ )<.• )/1/ /J,_,, ' SincereI I Dominic DelGuidice Project Director Encl osures (4) \ �r-1 n ! : ~ I .__ _ i 1 !

' , I L .-l L-1 I I Qj o I ,.,. '-.-., e,.I ' 1 l l I \___ ',_; __,) ! i o l i ---, . . '

DJ Ii ' -~r·J ,., ,,. I" ....., U I. '· Enclosure

---

~

I

\

·-, \ \ I !._./ / I ~- ___ ,.., . . / / r~ ·.--. , , I• .r-,.,. u'--. ..: r 11 r--'\ n :-~ \-\ I \;

t '- -·-· i 1

r

\ ·. , ! :·\_ · ' j i: ·: \ i_..,.I ~ _ ·--, _...., \ ~ t ' A11 '; 'I I ,\ J / r ~ I" n ~~ ,, .;~ ;,. . , . \ ; ' ' I . I, iJ V - I I i VJ A S H Br-J C - 0 N D • C • 2 0 c!, ·~ 0 II I I 1 t ' HUD-No. 69-0008 Phone (202) 755-6990 FOR RELEASE: Thursday, January 2, 19 69 IMPACT OF HUD PROGRAMS TO BE STUDIED Improving the effectiveness of major Federal programs is the aim of a research contract announced today by the U. S. Depart:ment of Housing and Urban Development. 1 T. F. Rogers, Director of HUD' s Office of Urban Technology and Research, .announced the award of a $100,000 contract to the American Society for Public Administration. The project will study · severa l of HUD' s programs in terms of their operation in a number of se lected cities. . I l Mr. Rogers noted that "it is on~ of HUD' s prime responsibilities to insure that states, cities and localities use its assistance programs to maximu m advantage. The conclusions of this study are expected to aid both HUD and the cities in improving the results of such Federal programs as public housing, urban renewal., water and sewer facilitie s, and open space. 11 The National Academy o f Public Administration, working with its parent organization, the America n Society for Public Administration, will establish a national panel and individual city panels to conduct the study. These panels will develop a pattern describing the activities related to the admini stration o f each program surveyed in a city, and analyze the principal local c ritica l decisions and actions. The · panel members will include member s of the Academy a nd residents of each city to be surveyed who are knowledgeable in public administration matters. - more- • I !I I �• -2- . HUD- No. 69-0008 . Among the questions t o be studied will be the local reaction to the initiation o f a pro gram ; the nature of Federal, State and lo cal initiative ; how t he problem t o be solved wa s perceived by various groups within the community ; whether s killed personnel were available to carry out t he program, and what the performance rate and effectivene ss has been in the light o f local circumstances. When the individual city studies are completed, the results will be assessed on a national scale and general conclusions drawn. Further information can be obtained from George Graham, Director, National Academy of Public A_d ministration, 1225 Connecticut. · Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036 • .il. 1T .u. if

- I· V �Enclosure 11 B11 .ATLANTA PANEU~ Convenor Dr. }: or:::-is W.H. Collins, Jr. ~irector, Institute of Government Univers ity of Georgia Terre ll Hall Athens, Georgia 30601 · 1·::!'.' . Cecil A. Alexander 4l Broad St ., N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Hr . Glenn E. Bennett

c;:<ecutive Director

Atlanta Region Metropolitan ?12.nning Comrnission 900 Glenn 5uilding Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ers . Henri etta Gantry ·757 Lynvalley Road, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Prof . Tobe Johnson 3405 Lynfield Drive, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Dean Alex Lacey urban Life Center Georgia · State College· ·· Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Hrs. Alexander McPhedran 1365 Clifton Road, N.E. ·Atlanta, Georgia 30307 l'lr. Howard K. Menh inick Director of Planning and Development Ke ck ~ Wood, Inc. 3722 Pleasantdale Road Atlanta, Georgia 30040 · ½r . Jame s Robinson Urban East Housing Consultants 900 Peachtree St. , N.:S. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Hr·. Moreland Smith Southern Regional Counail, Inc. 5 Forsyth St., N.W. Atlanta, Geo·rgia 30303 Dean Robert E. Steimke Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Mr. Herbert L. Wiltsee D.i rector, Southern Office Council of State Governments 830 Peachtree St., N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 -;~ One or two additional members may be· appointed. �Enclo sure 11 C11 . PILOT RESEARCH DESIGN FOR HUD PROJECT I ntr odu ction Th e Na tiona l Academy of Public Administration is undertaking, for the Dep artmen t of Housing a nd Urb an Development, a study intended to uncover' <:,~~E:te -~~·~!~~ s uy ban pro gram performanc e .

..:.·----- and relationships which fa5 il ~ e or h2:n2._er Th e ob j ec t ive is to identify the critical .,...______ el ements i n de cision making and action systems by which HUD programs for lo cal government s ·are put into e f f ect, and to suggest ways of maximizing t he fa vor a ble and minimizin g the unfavorable elements. This study is a r efle ction of t he conc er n of HUD and othe rs with the difficulties of i~p l ement i ng na tional pr ogr ams which hav e the ir impact at the local level. Th e link s be twe en ·program ori gin a nd program performance ·have appeared . long and tortuous. . . Th is study de si gn r epresents o~e approach for the anaiysis of program perf orman c e fr om the persp e ctive of t h e local level. will study f our HUD pro grams - The Aca demy non -p r of i t sponsored new housin g und er 22l ( d ) (3 ) , turnk ey housing , ba s ic wat er arid sewer· facilities grants , and inner- city open spac e - in six or s ev e~ cities. Th e Approach Although substa ntiv e que s tions and inf ormati on will vary from c ity t o city, ther e are certain conceptual items wh i ch must be cons i der ed · in ana l yzing t he pr ograms i n e ach of t he cities studied. The ass ump t ion �1 - 2 - .. is chat there are multiple forces and factors which impinge on critica l decision -making in regard to par ticul ar programs in particular cities. What we are viewing is the allocation and mob ilization of city and other resources which a re directed toward definite urban programs. The reason why resour ces are more succes s ful ly mobilized in one city as opposed to another, or in one program as oppose·d to another, leads us to investi gate these factors. In brief, t he first assumpti on is that the basic item to be vi ewed is program performance , and the second assumption is that in analyzing pr·ogram performance, one must look at the relationships o.f c ertain fa ctors to program performance. The multiple fa ctors whi ch impinge on the mobilization of r e sources f or pro gr am performance may be best viewed by means of an action (or inaction) sys t em for each program for each c ity . The action syst em c an be v iew2d as a process which responds to and , in turn, influences other factors. The Ac tion System In brief, the action pr ocess includes several ' critical points; ( 1) the definition of the issue; ( 2 ) the identific ation and gathering of resources and the involvement o f the community; (3) development of a plan of a ction and program administration; ( 4) assignment of management and operation of programs; ( 5) coordination with other level s of government; and (6) evaluation of the program and feedback. �- 3 - . This brief statement of the action system can gain added meaning by now asking questions which relate to each step in the a ction system . These questions will reflect t.wo types of phenomena. The first type concerns facto~s whi ch are reflective of the intergovernmental nature of these HUD grant -in - a id programs. · The second type of questions which are incorporated concern characteristics of the city which may impinge on the action system for · urban program performance. These questions concern the following types of c ity ch ara cteristics: (1) jurisdictional adequacy; (2) legal authority; (3) finan c ial resources; (4) trained manpower ; (5) public concern; (6) leadership; (7) bureaucratic rivalries; (8) governmental form (including plural ism and fragmentation); (9) concurrent problems and programs; (10) demographic chara ct eri stics; and (11) indices of problem areas. Questions Concerning th e Steps in the Action System 1~ (a) (b) ( c) (d) (e) I de nti f yin g and defining the issue and problem: \.Jhat cr itical events led to recognition of the problem? \.Jho pa rticipated? How much participation in this step was there on the local/ state/federal level? What was the nature of the federal, state, and/or l~cal initiati~e ? \.Jhat wa s the nature of the official interest in and support for the pro gram in the embryonic pha s e? ( f ) How mu ch involvement was t h ere from the private sector? (g) · Wha t bearin g did the favorable, apathetic, or unfavorable attitudes of identifiable segments of the public have upon initiating action? (h) Did t h e prese nce or absence of personal leadership affect the in itiat ion of act{on? (i) Wh a t type of technical information and general infonnation wa s ava ilabl e abou t the problem and programs? \ �- 4 j ' I ' ( j) ( l,) (1 ) From whom wa s it j vailable?

ow avail able?

1fas it clear o:::- obscure? ( ;~1) ( :1) r:0'\-1 w.::s the problem ;;nd t he pr ogram perceived by the various parties? Wz.s there any diver gen ce here? Dici these per c ep t ions cho.n:se during the various stages of the programs? . \ Was there any divergence? ( o) (p) 2. (a) (b) ( c) (d) ( e) (f) ( g) T~e Iden t ifi ca tion and Gathering of Resour ces and the Involvement of the Con:munity : We re interested and qual ifi~d personn~l ·available to initiate, plan, ,, . a nd c a ~~y on the a cti on? Politi c a l or professional a nd technical personnel were they avaiiable1 In r efe r ence to certain p ro grams, were civic, industrial and commercial groups available? A~d othe r pa rts of the community? How were participants persu a ded as to the rightness of the goals of particular pr ograms ? Were other segments of the co!Thuunity opposed to the program ? How did this affect the mobilization of resoDrces and the eventual pr ogram ·performance? (h) P.ow was a de terminat ion made in re ga rd to the technical requirement s · for prepar ing proposals? (i) How were attention and interest built up to make the probl~m an a ction issue? Who made t h is an issue - private citizens, interested or ganizati ons, politi ca l parties, publi c officials, local/state/federal of fi cials? At wha t st age, and how, did the Mayor and other executives and council become involved? (j) (k) 3. (a) Developrr.ent of a Plan of Acti on and Program Administrati on: (c) How mu ch federal (including regional admini stration of HUD ), state, or local contribut ion was there in the development of ideas concerning a pl an of a ction? Who contributed how much to the decision? Was i t a single individu a l or a small group within the community? (d) How much general public discussion and participation was there? (e) How much were interest groups, private sectors , and political parties resoonsible for the de. cision? . (o) �1

-

(f) (;) ( 1) (i) (j) (.() ( 1) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) ( ~) (s) 5 - 1t :1:1 t al tcrn:J.tivc s were c onsidered? How wJs the choice among alternative poli ci es made? ~as t her e, in fa c t , any real al t ernatives given characteristics of t he cfry a nd oth er factors? Wa s the decision viewed the same by all parties to th~ deci si on, or was it viewed as t he s ame program with different goals and allocating vari ous rates of benefits to d if ferent groups? How cl ear was the decision made n ot only within 'the city b~t to other levels of government? How diff icult was it to ga cl1cr da t a concerning the program? 1-Jhc1:e ewes th is data c ome from? How much did the. data inf luence the development of the program a~d the pro gram administrat ion ? How wa s it handled ? Wna t were t he fa ctors i n deciding the significant elements of discret ion such as ch oice of s i-t e , timing, schedule, and magnitude_ of t he program? How were these decisions made and over what type of time span were they made? Did the c ity government have the techni cal ly qua lified personnel to proceed? Was this a limiting factor? If so, how was it over come, or-was it? Did the c ity government have the financial resources to support t he prog:;:am ? (u) . Did t he c ity have the jurisdictiona l adequacy and the legal authority to perform t h e program? (t) (v) 4. ( a) (b) How l ong did it take to formul ate the pr ogram? AssiQnment of Management and Op eration of Program : Wha t fa ctors were respon s ible for the decision as to where to place responsibility for administrat ion and operation of the program? How was this decis ion made? (c) Did the city government hav e the t e chnically qualified p ersonnel to proc eed? ( d) How long did it take from program approv al t o first action in project construction? P.ow long did it take to full sca le effor t? What a ccounts for length of time such a s fast or s low start? ( e) ( f) ( g) . Were t h ere especially difficult organiza tional or technical problems? I �I - 6 - .. (h) (i) Did the p rogram kec~ on schedule? l~a t a cc ounts for dev iation? (j) W s t h e effort la r ge or small as rela t ed t o t he size a nd s e r i ou sness or t he prob l em? (k) ( l) Was there continuing offi c ial and public intere s t in .t h~ p r~gram? Was the c hange o f personne l and elec ted o ff icial s r el e v ant to the. program? . How available were qua l ified pers onne l t h ioughout the program ? (m) 5. (a) (b) ( ,;) ( d) (c) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) (m) ( n) (o) Coordina tion With Other Levels of Governme n t :· lfuat were identifiable difficulties i n secur i ng s t a t e a nd/or fe d e r a l appr oval (in the regional o ffice or a t headqu arter s) ? l&at type of act i on was ini t iated t o s e c ure appr ova l? Ha s it c hiefly :throu gh admi nistretiv e c hanne ls or was it a t profe ssional levels or politi c al exec utiv e l e v el s? . Did party offi c ial s get invo l v ed , such as members o f the Sen ate or House? How long did it t ake to secure approv a l? hfha t consideration was given to other r ela t e d programs i n t he pr oce ss of pro~rarn bu ild ing and approval? Was revision of the program required b y s t a te or fe d eral off ic ial s? Was t he need for c oordina t ion perceiv ed? By whom? What steps to coordinate wer e taken? Were the stipulated procedures clear , s i mp l e , dir e ct and f unc tional , or were they neutral or dysfunctional? Did t he procedures change during the life of the pro gram? What was the nature and effect of the change? Were dire.ct personal interdep artmenta l and intergovernmental lines of communication open? Were they used and how effe c tively? (p) When decisions or clearances consume d much time, to what extent was the time cost .at tributabl e to high volume of paperwork, short~ge, of qualified personnel, interna l opposition, and/or outside ~ressures, indecisiveness or unknown c a us es? ( q) When programs were formulated and appr oved, was there delay in funding? llliat were the limiting factor s in funding? What sources were considered? ·cr) (s) 6. Evaluating the Program and Feedback: �,-- 7 - ( 3. ) (b ) (c) (d) Wa s t h ere adequa te fe edba ck f rom opera ting experience to program r ev iew and r ev·ision? (e ) i;na t h a d been the a chiev ements of the program measured by the basic pr o::,l em a s n ow perceived? Have the re b e en any bene f icial or detrimental byproducts of the program? (f ) (g ) (h) (i) (j)

·------ h'cJ.: e 2.ctiv ic ies r outin i ze d ? We~e pe r f orman c e st an dards devised by wh ich the level of routine a c tivitie s cou l d be mea s ured? Ha s a fo r ma l r ep or tin g pr oc ed ure developed? i~,a t are t he pr i ncipa l jud gments a bout the program by local officials, st a te offi cia ls, f eder al off icials, and others? What is t h e priva t e j udgme nt ? Has opp osition to the pro gram continued, increased, or decreased? Lookin g ba ck on . the eff ort, would city ' officials undertake it again in t he s ame way or differently? �I En closure 11 k) 1_1 Xarc:-. 24, 1069 TE~TATIVE I~TERVIEW SCHEDULE Atlanta, Georgia A• . Federal - HUD Re gion'a l Of f ice Peachtree - Seventh Building 1. Regional Adrainistrator. 2. Assistant Regional Administrators for: a. Federal Housing Admini s tr a tion (2210;L3))) b. Housing Assistance (Turnkey); c. Xetropolitan Deve l opment (Open Space and Water & Sewer). 3 • . Other k ey sta ff a t Regiona l Headquarters. 4 •. FHA Insuring Off ice, 230 Pea chtree Street, Atlanta. a. Dire ctor b. Key staff B •. Sta t e C. 1. Off ice of the Governor 2. Sta t e Planning Agency 3. State Department of Health (Water & Sewer ) 4. Department of Na tural Res our ce s Bureau of Outdoor Recrea tion (Open Spa ce ) Local - City of Atl anta l. Off i ce of the Mayor a. Mayor b. Assistant to the Mayor c. Director of Governmental Liaison -; �Tentative Inccrvicw Schedu le Atlanta, G~o~ 6 ia . D. 2. Member s of City Council 3. Depar t ment of Public Works (W3ter Director 4. Depar t ment of Parks and Re cr ea tion (Open Space) Director 5. Redeve lopment or Renewal Agency Director 6. City Planning Agency Director 7. Citizen 1 s Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal (221(~)(3))' 8. Atlanta HousingAuthority (Turnkey) Director 9. Atlanta Housing Development Corporati~n Local - &. Sewer) Fu l .ton County , Regional 1. County Officia ls 2. ~etropolitan Atlanta Coun cil . of Local Governments 900 Gl enn Bui lding, Atlanta 3. Atlanta Region Metrop olitan Planning Commission , 900 Gl enn Building, Atlanta I

E • . Loca.l - .' i ' Citizens Groups / Asso ciations 1. Georgia Municipa l League, 506 Fult on Federal Building, Atlanta 2. Association. of County Commissioners of Georgia, 205 Forsythe Buildi~g 3. Model Neighborhood,Inc. 4. I nter f aith~ Inc. 5. Wr:eat Street Baptist 6. Atlant a Chamber of Commer c e, 1301 Commerce Building, Atlanta 7. Other Busines s/Industrial Gr oups 8. Housing Tenant Gr oup s 9. C?mmun i ty Ac.tion Gr oup s ) ) ) ) ) \ ( 3,4,5 are possible Housing Sponsors) �I 1> -- March 27, 1969 PROGRAM SUMMARIES AND STATUS This is designed to s erve as a working document for the study of HUD programs . Atta ched are five appendi ces: Appendix A - Turnkey Hou sing - Program Steps and ~roc essing Procedur~s Appendix B - Basic Wa ter and Sewer Grants Program Steps and Processing Procedures Appendix C - Open Space - Extracts from HUD Procedure Handbook App end ix D. - Non- Profit Sponsored New Housing under 22l(d) ( 3 ) Appendix E - Status of Selected HUD Programs The first four appendices provide a brief explanation of the programs and a breakdown of the pr ocessing steps and procedures under each pr ogram. Appendix E giv es an indication of the nature and ·Status of those programs currently u~derway in the city(ies). .. �I Ma rch 18, · 1969 The Turnkey program was started by HUD on a n experimental -b ·a sis in January of· 1966 . Its basic purpose is co permit better utilizat i on of the means and knowledge of priva t e enterprise in producing public hous~ng . Under the Turnkey method, a dC!ve loper or builder who ovms a site or an option , or can obt ain one, may submit, in r e sponse ta an invit ation from a Local Hou sing Authority (LHA ), a propo s a l to buil d hous ing . . • for low income f amilies. If the developer's proposal is a ccep table to the LHA and HUD, the LHA ·will enter into a Contract of c he LHA agrees to purchase the comple t ed development. This contra ct wi:l Sale und er which be ba~ked up by the financial a ssist an ce corru~itmcnt of t he United States of Americ a , a ct ing through HUD? · to the LHA, and it will enable the dev.::.loper -c o secur e · cormner cial construc tion financing in hi s usual way . At the National lev el, responsibility for this progr am is und e r t:he Assistant Se cr etary f or Renewal and Housing Ass is tance of HUD.· Program res p ons i bility is further delegated to the Deputy As sistan t Secret~ry for Housing Assistanc e , the Head of the Hou~ing Assistance Administrati on. ~~e Turnkey Program is administered by the Direc tor of t he Production Div isio~ . . . There are three program managers ~ ithin this Div i sion who serve as liaison of fi cers between the HUD Re gions a nd Headquarters f or this and other public housing programs administered by HUD. At t he Local level, ther e are general ly only two participants: The Local Housing Authority and the privat != dev el op er . T:-.e LHA 1 s vary in powers and structure as they are establ istc~ ~~d e ~ the authority of s~ a ~2 encblin3 legislation. �2 The Tur,1key n echod en c omp asse s only the construct ion phc::se 0f . a low ren t housing project . It h a s no dire ct bearing on the initial appli c a tion mace by a community f a:::- low rer.t housing or -the management and ope ration of a l ow ren t hou s i ng proje ct. Th e pro c essing steps outl ined below for a .turnk ey p:.coject follow t he approval by HUD of ·a LHA 1 s app~i cation for a low rent hou~ing pro gram: 1 . The LHA makes the initial decision to construct proposed low rent housing by the Turnkey method . 2 . If not alre a dy versed in t he &ppli cation of the Turnkey method , the LHA consults with region a l officials, obtains sufficient inform~ti on on requirements and procedures, a nd decides to proceed by that method . 3. The LHA ma y request a pre liminary lo a n f rom HUD to cover turnkey expens e s; if appr oved by HUD , a loan con tract is negotiated bet~een HUD and t he LHA . 4. Th e LHA i nvites pr op osals from private developers fo r par ticipation in a Turnk ey p r o ject. Th is mu 3 t be don e by public adver tisemen t st a ti~g cype of proje ct desired, number o f u nits, and othe r deta ils o f ·t h e p:::-op osed project . The noti c e als o mus t specify the federal r equirements that must be complied with . 5. ~h e private developer(s) sub~its 3 cop ies of a proposal in response co t he LHA 1 s solicitation. 6 . The LHA send s tw o co pies of all the proposa ls received to th e Re g i ona l Hou sing Assistan ce Office (HAO) . 7. Th e LHA and HAO eval u a t e t h e prop o sa ls and c ome to a mutual a gre ement of the developer to be chosen. This involve s , among other things, sice evaluations made by th e HAO Realty Officer. 8. The LHA notifies the developer of his tentative selection by letter. 9. The LHA contra cts f or tw o independent appraisals of the site. 10. A Fe a si6ility Conference is held in the HAO with the following partici pan ts : t h e LHA r ep res e n ta tive s , the deve1op er, his architect and otte r as soci a t e s, and HAO st af f. · Thi s conference has three p ri~ary ? Urp o ses: ( 1) to ne gotiate the pu rc h ase price o: the land; . �- 3 - (2) to discuss proje ct des i gri and HUD requirements; (3) to s e t d~tcs for : (.:1) submission and review in the 1-IAO of the preliminary d ~wings and ot her d~tes required for the Letter of Intent ; (b) a :-1egot i a ti cn Conference; . (c) exe cu tion of the Letter of Intent ; (d ) ;.;ubmission and review by LE.A and HAO of working drawings and specifications; and te) e xe cut ion of Con t ract of Sale. 11 . Af ter the Fe~sibility Conference has been held and an understanding reached, the developer proc eeds with the preparation of t h e matirial required for the Negoti~ti on Conferenc e . 12 . The devel oper sub~its his preliminary plans which are reviewed by the LHA and HAO. The p l ans are dis cussed with the developer and. his ar chite ct and any n e cessary change s are made • . 13. The prel i minary plans are sub~i tted to two -individual cost estimators err.p loyed f or this purpose by the· LHA. 14 . The appr oved cos t estima tes are evaluated and considered by t he LHA and t he HAO.' 15 . The ~egoti a tion Conference i s held in the HAO with t he developer and his asso c iates , and LHA and HAO staff s part icip a tin g . The p~rp ose of the confir ence is to ne s otiate a price f or the improvements (the price of the land is already set tl ed , step 10). 16 . Fol l owing agreement at che Ne gotiat ion Conference, t he 'LHA prepares a Development Pro gram on Form HUD-5080 and submits an original and fou r copies to the HAO. The Dev e lopment Program is a statement of the developer ' s pr oposal and pri c e as agreed upon and approved at t he Negotiation Confe~ence . 17 . The RAO approves the LHA Development Program and sends an annua l Contribution Cont ract List to the C~ntral Offi ce for .its appr o~a1; . 18 . The Ce ntral Office a~proves the HAO subrnis~ion authorizing RUD e;~e cut ion of an Annual Contributions Contract viith the LHA and approval of :.h e Let t er of Intent between the LHA and the Developer . · 19. Following the 1-L-\O approva l and LHA is suanc e of the Letter of l nt2nt, the dev el oper prepares and submits working drawings a~d specifications to t he LHA. 20. The LHA rev iews and approves the .wo:::-king drawings and subr..its them to t.::e HAO. �- 4 ,·. 21 . The HAO reviews the working d= awing~ , ·discusses them with Lh em , t h e LHA , and developer, a~d , i f n e ce ssary, schedules a meeting a t w~ i ch the LHA, the develo~er and hi s associates will be present. .. 22 . Af ter a pprov2l of t he wo= k ing d=awings and specifications, the LHA s h.:, ll obtaintwo upd2ted cost esr:irnates , review and evalua te t h em in the same manner as the first e~timates , and submit two copies with the results of its eva luation to the HAO for review and approval. 23 . On the basis of · t h ei:..: review and evaluation of the approved, upda ted cost estinates, the L}li\. and EAO agree on a price to be of f ered to the developer for inclu s ion in the Contract of Sale, and negotiate that price with the develop er. 24. Upon agreement as to the price to be included in the Contract of Sale, the LHA and HAO shall confer and prepare the Contract ·of Sale, wh ich is theru executed by the developer, the LHA, and HUD . 25. The LHA selects an architect who ' is to perform inspection ser~ices for the LHA in connection with-the project and executes a contract with him . 26. The LHA notif i e s t he general pub l ic by newsp a per advertisement of the award of the Con tra ct of Sale to . the named developer , including the price he is to receive and a description of the project . The Construction of the Turnkey project begins with sale to the LHA upon completion. - 27. I f required, plans for the relocation ofAoccupying the site are prepared, and relocation assistance payments are made. During construction of the project, the HAO observes and reviews t he a ctivit i e s of the LHA and its archite ct to ensure compliance in administration and in inspection under the pertinent contracts. The HAO also reviews cons truction opera tions and visits the site periodically to insure c9mpliant p e.:- f; ormance. LHA 1 s are encouraged by HUD to use Urban Renewal project land _for a Turnkey s i te. In this case, the Local Public Agency may sell such l and t o a pr -i va t e dev e loper . �,-- - I .. ...., - 5 - lfuere it is economically feasible, the projects should be . so design ed that individua l units or groups of units could be sold to i~dividuals, or to groups under some form of condominium or cooperative ownership . I

~= �I ..; Mar ch 18, 1969 BASIC Hi\TER .AND SEWER GRANTS P?.DGR.(:.,~ S'i'~PS Ai'-;D P~OCiSSING PROCSi)U?.ES 11 The purpose of t he Water and Sewer Facilities Grant pr ogram is to ass ist local public bodies and agencies in constructing adequa te ' b a sic water and sew2r fa cil ities needed .to promote the efficient and orderly growth and development of our communities. 11 11 To be eligible f or gra:it assistance under this program, the appi icant must be a local public body or agency est~blished by the action of one or more States or entities thereof, with legal authority to p l an, f inance, construct, mai-ntain and operate the proposed project. 11 11 Grant assistance is available to help finance spec ific projects for basic water and sewer fa cilities. Water facilitie~ include works to store, supply, trea t, purify, or distribute water of sufficient quality and quantity for domesti c, c ommercial md industrial use. Sewer faci lit ies i nclude sanitary sewer -s yster.is for the collection, transmission, and discharge of liquid wastes; and storm sewer systems for the ·collection, transmission, and discharge of storm water caus ed by ra infa ll or ground water runoff. 11 11 The amount of the grant-in-aid may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of ·constructing the basic parts of the water or sewer facility pr oJect and of acquiring the l and on which it is located , including site improvements necessary to make the land usable as a site for the project. 11 11 No grant may be made to assist in constructing a sewer project unless the Secretary of Health, Edu~ation, and Welfare certifies thijt the waste carried by the facilJty . is adequatelj treated before being discharged �- 2 - .' into any public wa terway. The request for certif ication, t6gith er with ,. releva n t project data , shall be . sent to the DHEW Regiona l office by the Regional Director upon receipt of an application for assistance in constructing a sewer project. 11 Program Steps: 1. A Loca l Public Agency (LPAY makes initial inquiry to HUD Rigion~l .o ff ice. HUD. office mails LPA printed ma terial and four copies of SF-101~ Pr e liminary Inqu iry Conc erning Federal Assistance for Water Proje cts, Sewer Pr oj ects and Waste Treatment Plants. 2. LPA completes and submits SF-101 to HUD Regional Office. 3. HUD acknowledges receipt of SF-101 by letter to LPA. 4. HUD reviews SF-101 for completen_ess , requests further information if ne c e ssary, and determines if project is applicable to the HUD grant program . (This may involve referring SF-101 to EDA, FHA, · or DHEW for commen t and considerati on. HUD also receives SF-101 forms from t hese other agencies for action.) 5. After referral and determina tion, HUD notifies LPA of decision ·to process the inquiry under the HUD program . 6. Following a det ermination by the Reg ional Director and his staff t ha t the pr e liminary inquiry will lead to an acce ptable application, t he Regional Director invites the prospe ctive applicant to attend a pre -applicati on conf erenc.e. The conference discussion concluded with an understanding as to whether an application may be submitted for consid erati on. In favorable cases, the applicant is furnished with the applic ation forms and asked to sub~it. 7. Followin g the meetin g, a lett er to the applicant is s ent by t he Regi onal Director confirming the understandings reached during the c onference, with particular reference to any actions agreed upon. 8. The LPA submits a fo r mal application for a Basic Water and Sewer Grant. Af t er receipt of th e appli c a tion, the HUD Regi onal Office send s the app lic ant a letter acknowledging the application. 9. HUD begins. its review of the applicat ion and sends a request for certification to the HEW Regi onal Office. This reque s t is accom:;:ianied by certain mater ia ls, including copies of lette r s of · comment, clearance or approval fr om local, state, and inter- state agencies having authority over design and construction of the project. At this same time, HUD may send notices of the application to other Federal Agencies as appropriate . �I_ .. - 3 - 10 . Preliminary review of the application is made by the s t a:"f of t he Re giona l Offi c e, usua lly in the fo llowing order - Planning Requirements, Engineering , Financ e , Legal and Program Officer. .. 11 . Up on satisfactory c omple t ion of the preliminary r eview , a project summary is prepared f or signatur e by the Regional Administrator and sent to the Community Facilities Divis ion , HUD , Washington, D. C., to request a fund reservation fo r the pr ojecit. 12. After a fund reservation is made , the Corranunity Facilities

Divis i on arranies for a press release and release date, notification

of interested members of Congress, and notifies the regional of_f ice of the reservation by teletype. · 13. Following receipt of the teletype advising of the fund res ervation and a t the relea se time specified, t he iegional _Director advises the applicant of such r es ervation of funds. 14. Upon approval of the project and grant, 'the project file is forwarded to the Lega l Division of the Regional Office for preparati6n of the Grant Agreement. . .. o=-'l)~e. ~...- '::,,~~ . 15. The Grant Agreement is forwarded to the applicantAand return to the Reg ional Office. Following the execution of the Grant Agreement, the LPA lets the c ontra ct f or t he project through competitive bidding . The LPA must mee t c erta in other requirement s including submission of material to the HUD Regional Offi c e during the pre-construction and construction phas~s of the project. ( Procedures during these phases are contained in section 20-1-1 of the Handbook s taff. ) this section has n ot . been furnished to the Academy �r.

0

I I ! .. .il 'l'he Open Spa ce LD...1d Pr0c~1·2.r:·l assis~.::s local r;ove1·r...:-::c:-,ts ~nC:. Stc:.-'ce:s in purchacinG nnd clevclopine l and in u:c'oan c.re;:;.::; for :p;:;.:c~ , recy22..-~::.0:.--a, scenic, historic, and co.:1.se::-vo.t ion pu1·posc s. T:'1e o':)jective::~ ot ·c:-.e progr2..n r..re to prcvcn,c the spread of- ur02.n bliGht, deterio:i:atio:1, a::c! · sprawl; to encoui-.,:.gc n:ore econo:nic a:-.ci desirable ui':n.n develop:r.e:r.t; c..nd to meet the open sp3.ce needs of people in the city. J .; ' . \

.. ..: Open Space e;rn.nt.s c2.n cover up to 50 :percent of the cost of r.cqui:tin.r; lc.r.d. Gr2.nts r,~a.y be r.,ad.e only to public bodies; :pri vat.::: ·or.:~c.nizn:~ions are not elieible. 'l'hc r.12.tchinG f\mds furnished by tile loco.J. ;;ovcr~7,cnt m8.y co:..e f1·om any non-Federal couree, inclt:.ci.:i.r.3 l)ri vatc :philanthror,y . EO\·Tever, donations of land co.nnot co"C.Y,t to·.-;a:';l ·c:-,e locc.l she.re. A p:coj ect must ·oe based on an open space i;ila.'1 for t:'1.:: CO;";l!;m.,ity und must . be in confo::r,:ance with s.re2.wic.e co::-,pr2:"2n:::ivc:

ilo.nnin.

 

~or the entire mctro1)olitnn urea. The lD.nd rou:;t be locate:c.

in an urbo.n area. However, there is no :minirr,",.1.m :population li;-;;ita~ic::.. • J l 'i'he Dc:pe.rvnent :plr..ces high :priority on lar.d ~cquisition ,:ne:-. :.;; i::wolves U.'1.devclo:p(!d 18.nd, but li;;-iitecl gra:yc-in-o.id assistc.r.ce t0~,2.~ the d.::vcio:pment of pa:/ks and other open space areas is also available. ~n gcner~l, all develop~ent activities i~ ·central cities anu lori_income neighborhoods can be assisted with a i'ull 50 percent gra::it. ' . '] 'l j ( 0 1 The Dcparc~ent places hiGh priori"Cy on the develop~ent of land for open s pace use when it involves clcvelopecl land, and there is no red~ction on the 50 perc~nt grant level of assistance for such l)urposcs. Land for o:pen· sp2.ce mc:.y be ei tncr vacant e.nd. \.mdevclo:p8d or, whc:."c no vacant land i s available, assistance may be obtained. :~or pm-chating already developed land, for de~olishing t~e existing st:ructures on it, and for developing it· for park or recrec:.tio~al uses. Demolition expenses are an eligible project cost when develo:p~d land is a cquired. In order f or a coi':U'ilunity to obt ain an Open S:pac2 grant, it wust

file e.n · appli cation wit h hl.JD . The n:pplica,don. should be b as e d 0:1

loc~l o,cn sp~ce pluns and priorities and official ncti on by the r2s;ion::.ible loc2.l govermcent body to authorize t he :r:irojcct. Al):pli c c).tions cannot retroactively cover land already a cqu{rcd. Applicatio~s m.2.y include a m.~--nb~t_.Q""'_g;_i~e..§_~praj_~.c.ts. ?he Dc:p""rt~ent e:::couraGeS co:rJ:r.unit:res··to- include the acquisition and developr:i.cnt prog:-~:::i :for ~ whole year in a single application. Such action reduces ever-ybocy's paperwork. 0 i 1-lUD-Wa:;~ . , D. C, . ( I j . ,.s $ . , ,,... i.• '-' · . • · .,'.

-!.,<,.>,1i. •.• ,? _l'! .'

~- . ' ·" '.; ·' '-~··" ...

·' .,. ..: i: '· �As soon a s a n applic a tion i s fil ed , trw. D2pc:.r t~e :i.t will o.c~'..:.o'.-:lcdg.:: it a nd i s st:e a "let te r of co:1:::; c nt " u r.d.:::r wh ich :i:~ is :;,0:::;si".:>le

~or a co::;;;;uni ty to g o a hc3.d and acc;:c.i r e the open s:!_)O.cc lar.d a t its

own risl~ 1 eve n without a:r.,})rovo.l o:r a c;rant 2..:r;:plication. ~'1C "l.:::".:.tc:r • ' • l y a:pprova 1 1 •ou t· r:-~ re 1 y proviccs •l . , T ""t • -:, o:~ co:1sc n..,.,_ II cocs no~• 1:r.-1p. -;:,:;av ~vl.l r.n y :::eir,iburse the a pplicant for e::...-:r.,0ns e s i ncurrC!d after the l c tte::r c:.~ co::.s c:1t is ,a uthorized, if t h e project is approved. A:pplicants w:-,o find it necessary or desirable to eo ahead on their own, do so er..tircly at their own risk. ..<. •. J .- , ...~ ! .·i . . ~ .. ,, -~ . . ::: ·:_.:__ ::·/ ~ .··i .: ~ 'J

j-~

'I

.\.fter an a1)plicatio11 }-las bee n f'ile d with o~e of t1 e D2~"'~::.2~.-:. 1 s _

Rc.-:;io:1al Offices, HUD will review the application ar..d ::-:akc a c.ecisio~ 0:1 wne ther it can be fur.ded 1 in te:r.:r.s of :priorities a,,d cor:.,cting applications. A funding ar..alysis process is used to eval~ate syste:natically all applications received. Projects a?proved for fundinr; then undergo detailed . reviews fo-.: .c o:-.1pliance with all technical pr.o gram req_uire;:;ients. I:f a p:::-ojec.t cannot be approved_ for funding, HUD will notify the corr.munity as soon as possible. ·1 I .·,4 ·j·, 0 ·iI .I ·.i •I When a e;rant is approved, t·:--ie D.2:part::nent I s Regioc1al Office

pro:.,::_">tly advises tne co;:-. nunity, after wnic:"i a for:.,2.l ?ederal co,.'tract

is issued. Tne contract s pells out the req_uire::-;,ents with w:1icr1 t:°'e g rant e e must comply in order subs e q_ue ntly to receive the authorized . .:;rant. Us ually the grantee :;:iust spend tne ~oney wi t:iin 12 .:-.onths; except'ions are made for cases i n vol vine; cota"t actions. Z'1 e Fede ral grant will b e :paid a s a r e irJburser:~mt after t :- ~ l and is actua lly purcha sed or the J?roposed de velop;-r;ent completed. 7nerefore , applica ;its must b e pre:pare d to fi nance acquisition or c. e velo?me;:it entirely on their own prior to re c e ivin~ reir.iburser::ent for tne Fe dera l share. T..-ie amount of tne O:p0 n Space grant will be basec. on two p r ofe ss ional l a nd ap}_)r .:.is a ls. T'ne cost of appraisals will be eligible i terns in grant cor11putation . . Land acquisition and deve lopment must meet Federal stanc~rds cove ri ng wage rat e s, non-discrimi nation, :price negotiatior.s, a~d so f orth . Mo s t of these r equireme nts a r e simlar to those. of otner Fede r ally assiste d programs. HUD h a s speciai r eloc a tion r eg_uir e ~e nts to assure tha t a nyone di s placed by a n Or,.3n Spac e pr oject ha s available g ood alternative ~ousins . Certain r e loc at ion grant pay;ncnts are mace to the displ acces. Tne se payments are e ligible for 100 :pe rce nt r e imb urs e ~ent by t he Fed era l Gove r nment in a dd iti o:1 to the a pp r oved grant. Local c or..rnunit ie s rr.ay b uy t he enti re t i t l e _to land (fee si~? le ) o~ t hey r:.ay a.cq_uire s o:-::e l iriui t e d intc r e s:, i n an oi:,~n. 2.1)3.Ce p:'oject site . Easements and life · es t ates ~ e eli r; i o l e. T.-:e D~;.:tl:".t::::::r:t e :ic oura.~es rr,ulti-ole l a nd uses, i ncludi:vr school-0ark co!:'. 0lcxcs . ii

~· �I I nir- ~·icn.;s developi;;ents > po.r1cs .:..n flood plain pro'!:.cctio;:i zo:'les , ?n.r:cs :i.n hiGh r.oisc areas near 2.ir:ports J and so forth. I i

Ass i stance is not available for t:ic purchase of alrc:ac1y c1evclope:d · o::;>en space areas J such as g·olf courses . ., •j 1 fuvelop.:-.ent provided for in 3.n o:pc:n space project no:rrzlly is li;;,i tc.:1 to ~inor construction; l2..nd s c a:.9in~J riluyc;rou~d eq_ui?::-,e:::-.t, utilities , erad inGJ and si~ilar activities. Major buildinss , s,ri,7.;..i ng pools, Golf c ou:tsc s, a--:11)hi thcD. ters and other "r;:aj or c o:-:s tr·..:ction" are not eligible. Dc::velo::;i:::-,ent assistance is available o::D.y for lo.nos acquired under the :pro 0 ram. Other assistanc e is available for lands already in J,Uolic ownership through the HUD lirban 3-za·,.r~i:.icatio;:i and L~prove~ent Procram . ij .j i

• i j ,! .l .:I' i ·1

I

·· i .}

i

--~ ' ·-1 1 .i G ~ -i D~partmental funding :priorities stress " putting o:pen s~ce

-,o

10y wne re the ) >20:ple are. 11 . , It aJ.so stresses meeting ur3:e:1t needs,

espe cially those of low-income neighborh oods and cor.i..1unit ies. Tne De:partment aiso encourages proj e cts that will have a de:.7.onstrable ir.-,pact on new urban 13rowth. L~se scale l)rojects far from U:C(?G.n centers have, in general , little likelihood of being funded . ·l., ., ...,

. l ·i Tne O;,en Sp ace Land P-rograo has alrea0y helped hundreds of . co;:u";luni ties work toward r.:eeting J>3.rk, recre2..tion and · c onserva.Jci o::1 ne ~ds. The progr am can have sriecial· value in helping cities ~ect the needs of :people in inner city and low-inco;,1e neighborhoods, often related to s?ecia l su,.-m:er p rogra:ns to ease tensions. 1-~any co;r.;-~unit ies have used open spsce dcvelop~ent activities as a source of local e~ploy;nent and training for neighborhood youth and the hard-core unemployed. Tne Departruent encourages such progra~£. •l --1 1 I 'I J ·j -1 'l i ·1 J ~ Tne Dzpa.rtment also encourages conur,unities to invlove loc~l n~i zhborhood residents in all phase s of the pla nninz process -locatinz the site, designing the facilities; constructio::1, operation a::1d maintenance . Citizen :particiJ?3.tion can as.s ure that p r ojects will r.,ee t neighborhood nee ds and b e a source of pr ide 't o the com...unity. -j .'1 . i 1 i! o. 1 l 1 ·; Land acquired with }iUD assis"cance ::mst re;;;ain as op--:;:-i. s:.;iace :..:

pc:c:,e"cui ty. StronG :protections are given by the law on o:pen s:.i2.co2:

.?:·ojcc'cs to discourage intrusions by incorr,}?2-tiblc larid uses .. 1·:.::C?:n it is in the })Ublic interest to convcr"c · al_l or :part of an o:p,-:m s:pace project to another use, approval by the Secretary of }fu1) ~ust be obtained, and the con1uuni ty ffiUs t su~stitute land of e~ual val~e a..~t quality serving generally the sar.:e :people. 0-utrignt full fee acq_uisition of ol)en space land :i.s r.ot al\-:2.ys feasiole, ;ior is i-;;. always necessa::-y r~o-;: t he P-uolic ::3ody to o·;:,tai:-1 Oi·::-te:rshj_n of land to rr,3.int2..iri it s o-::-,2 n s-:x'lce cha:r2.cte:r. In iii ·1 t' Hli'D•Wo.sh . , D. C. • ,. , , ,k 'If �.,, ,/ .,, .., · ·I---..---------~ . . __) '/ . I i .. ! ·I dcvclo?ir.G urban o..reo.s > cor:;r.iunitics c cm c arry out the or,cr. s1x1ce: clc:::81:t of tr.c co:npr.:::hcnsi vc plo.n oy yr2se;:,vin~ opc:-i. sp::i.cc > whc.:re: n e eded> ".:.hrouc;h ti1e use of nu,11ero\.:s ad:::iinistrati vc ar,d lC:.! 0 8.l tool s. Good zoni:1g practices> subdi visio:1 rc gul atioas that er:courace cl1.:.steri n;3> and re(_luire b ui lders ·of new nci,:},"borhoods to dedicate land fo::p3.rk c,:1d rccrea,tion purposes. .. a11 · can -do much to · assure the ava il6.bilit ~ of open space. . . l I ·j I .,) ( 1 1 l '• .I I:

. !i i;

I

i! ~ j Tne D~p.:1rt~ent gives Sf,8cia l attention to proj ects designed to neet er.-,ere;ency · needs and to ser.ve coordinated programs 'lor i:-cprovi r.3 tne urban envirorur:.ent and thereby the lives of :people . An e;;r.a;;,:ple would be s:--...a.11 :park development s in 1fodel Cities or other small parks in built.:·up ·c·ity neiGhbor:noo2fs-:- ·· ··- -· -- . ·1 1 i ~

j

i°nner ·<,l .' !: ;. ,. i':. ji f; ,!!: !! Con:.11ur,ities should ma},e \lSe of open s}?ac e standards > ei th e:::- by ad opting sui:rnested national s ta::-ida:-ds or by develo}?ing tneir own . T.ne standards should help define priorities and set goals to assure an equality of diverse or-,an space opport unity for all citizens. .·1J ~

p [i !; ! • ..H ., j; l ·1 .: l .J ·°j Q JI O}X:!n Space planning a nd prograr.~ shouid provice for sites > faci l ities and a ctivities :from the block a:id neighborh ood s cale ) to city-·.-ride areas > ar,d to regional facilities serving several cour."~ies or the entire raetropolitan ·area. .i •J Effective open space proGra~s a l so r e~uire intergovcr~J~eital -coo:-dinatio:-i. between 1)2.rk and recr2ation a.::;enci.e s > s c hool syste:::;:s) ' public util ity co::1.ilissions ) cultural a gencies , water companies) a::id other public age ncies that own or rr.anage land and facili-tie:s :iaving o~n s pac e and recreational values . ,' 'j .l

j

'.j 1 .. ,: ~tailed program req_uirer.:~nts a:::-e explained ·in the followi:::g . pages. Special cases or situations not covered in this guide should . be brought to the attention of the appropriate Regional Office . .~ ~ l' -j

-l

] .. . .. .', ·.l

.,

. -··1 l ·j ······ j . -.'· , . ... . ··, •···· l ,' l .j .] .l., . 1 . ·.~' •'

,

.. f } ,,; .,: I I·

. .:1 . 1 i I i ... _:l l - I' ,. 0 .. , l '-. !I .J r ., ·.::j I iv ·.:1 • I 't _i .- -143.215.248.55Y~·;··.-~,~ '. . -~7 :.':.: ,/::·.~;_,;j'_)'.·;_. ..:·:·.~:·.:':~ "! HUD-\1'c.,,.h ., D, C, ,·.'":\:7'~~3~:v:~i:,..,:_i-.,. . •_..:~:>.:-•7'.~":-:·..re-'":.'"'"":'c-""".'.,'r-r;""'·~:,"".·:':"".:--~.....,.....-;"":'"--.-......""'.'"'-..,.,._ _ _, . ; . . . ~ - - - - - , - . -f

,:· · .. .. �• -r I ·j I l 1 I ·i ! ·j ,· . 0 I r CEEClCLIS::' FOR APPLIC ATI01'T FOR GRP.X-:r 'I'O ACQDIRE L ALl) FO:R O?EII- S? ACE ?:.r.:2csz3 ' J

i

Code ::o. r I J i I I I i I I OS 101 l-'6:-~ :S:- 6600, !:Pplicc.tion f or C·r2.nt To Acquire ()-;:ic~- S~ace L~d . Incl ude 3 copies of ?oril R-6600 u Binder Ho.land l copy each in Binde::rs No. 2 and 3. - l,:odi f y :Block F, Conputation of Grant Araount , shown in Attachment B. 11 OS 102. 11 as 1-:ap of urban area s hoving locat:'..op. of l and t o be a cquire d or , i f -pr oposed a cqui sition r el ate s only to land of local significance , rr..ap of l~ality sho~'"i::l.g sit es t o be a cquire d. A standard city or c ounty street or r oad ~ap ~ay be u sed . Include 3 copies of t he map in Binder No.l and l copy each

i.n Binder s No. 2 and 3.

0 OS 103 OS 1 04 State~ent de scribing s~ecific open- space u ses _proposed f or the l e.nd c overed r.,y ·che a:9pl i c 2.ti6n . (A phrase such as 11 park and recreationa.1 11 ·is not a cceptable. ) Show proposed use for each i ndivi dual site in t:0.e application, indicating whether i t i s a local or regional use. .Ir any existing struct ure will be retained on l and a cquired , describe use to be made of the structure. Stater::..ent e;...' })laining na"cure , s ou_rce , and a:::ount of non-Federal :funds available for the a c quis i tion of land for open - space use , including the date . that such f\ m.ds will be avail abl e. Expl ain e:ny spe cial types of ~ortgag~ inst3.l.l.:rr.ent-payme4t purchase, or other financie.l a.:::-rangeEe~t involving land incl~ded in the program. If State assistance will be obtained, indicate the date application f or State as s istance -was submitted the present status of the application. If funds w-i-ll be derived f:-.. om bonds, indicate the length of t:ilne required to redeem the bonds. Ii' private or foundation funds are involved, indicate the soUl"ce, amount, and date

f'unds wil.l be available.

and 4 OSI.:? Gu:.c.e E:r..hibit A j:.· i "O Atta.cm.1e:,:rt ., i. I OSI.? Guicie C=..a-oter. 3 ~ i· r

·

l OSI.? C--:J.id.c c::..a:.pter l I . ! ' I t r: I I t.· i t. ~

~ .

OSI.? G-.iic..e Chapter l Lette:r Ko. OS-5 Page 9 ~· l t. ' ,.; '• ,. .!. l i f. . !: i_ ,. i I . �- ---.- -- - 1 'l i ·J 'l - J.2 - I i ·1 ·i I • I II Coc.e l{o. Item To Be S'J.b::itted · I I Refer ~o ! I I

j

.. i ·i Ple.nnins D2.ta . -j l OS lll St2.te~ent indicating that . corr.prehen:;;ive plc.nning for ~:::oan e.::-ea is 1,;..;1derw-;;.y, describinz scope of pianning, ! identifyir1g agency or inst~e::11:~ali-'cy carrying I,"'.:.he planning, and. indicatinz nature and e)-.-tent J l J loc::u participation and represen-'cation in the plunning . i ,, 1 ·l OS 112 i ·i·1 l Le-tte::r- ~Io . OS-5 Pages on 4, 5 of iI .II I I I . I I State~en-'c des cribin3 open- space acquisition o.nd Lette::- fio. develop~ent procram for urba..~ area, includinG (a) Pages 5, stand.n.rds and criteria, ( b) listing of :9ropose<i activities for next 5 to 10 years, (c) cost estimate , p:::iority schedule, and fi.1:ar. ci~s proposals , (d) coo:::dination procedures, e..::id (e) identification of ugeLcy or agencies· responsible for preparing pro.gr~~ • . A copy of tne open- space acqui sition Md developwent progran should be submitted_ as an exhibit . OS-5 /' 0 I ,; I If an intergovernnental agree~e~t is being or will be used. as the coordinating we c:J.a.:iism fo:::- the open- space acquisition and develo?~ent progra!:1, include a copy of the executed or proposed ayeement. If e.n agree~ent previously submi~ted to ~-'k'A is still j cu::-rent, reference r:1ay be maci.e to ti:le previous subnission whi ch includes the agreement. 1 j l ..J J j 1 ··1 , OS ·i OS ll4

1

113· 1

,i

. State::::1ent indicating whe::i applicatio:::i was ·revi_ewed by other agencies , identifying the age::icies, and s1.:r2arizing their coT.w..1ents • ! 1· I I Letter N.o . OS-5 Page 7 'j . j '.j .1 ·-1 Statement describing present and proposed activities . Lette::::- Iro. OS-5 . of local governing bodies to preserve open-space Page 6 le.nd in urban area and citing appropriate portions OSLP Guid.e of a:n:y to.x provisions or zoning, subdivision, s.nd Chapter l other regulations. 1 'l Le.nd ic ouisitirn.1 Date. ii

i OS 121

1

.l .I .i .j 'i I i . , Plat of each site to be acquired or detailed map of i e a ch taking area covered by t he application. Plat II ~~oU::.d clearly identify all structures and i.:::.prov'en.lents. on the l ru:d being acc;._uired, and indicate a::i..y to be r etained in a.ccor~~ce-with proposed site I .i I 0 plau. j 1

1 i

l _ _ _ _ __,,._..,....,-----i143.215.248.55 13:12, 29 December 2017 (EST)77"7143.215.248.55:'""\"",.:....,,.....-~ ... , ~-·" /·:r, •,, ,, , .-• . "-·Pi I W ll., •, ,• ·"·

.,-- , ' "

'• 1r • ' • • \ 7. 1 ' " -· ~ - ' ,.,.,......, , _,....,~- ,.,._.......,.._,_ _ _ _ _ __ �I I ! .! ! ! _, A3 - i 1 I l l i . i u . / ~ I 1 I Code Ko . I ., ,j I tem To Be Sc::o::::i:..t tcd F~c:fer To I ' II I I I I J -1 . l I I i ,.,,. pc.~ ial t a~inss ar.::: involv<::d. ) cho•,r vhich areas t otal }?D.::"Cc:l -w-ill rems.in iu fo::::...cr o,r.1er I s ( co:.i .) Il)Os s e s s ion . I :t' t akir.;3 nrc c..s :::.re .i nvol V8d and 1 1'.:t:al ' c.e scr i :ptions e.re l e..-::~ · ":.:.,) ces cribe taki ng a rea i n tens of nuturnl physicc.l pouncaries sue~ a s roads, r i vers, or similar f e atu:ces. OS 122. .I ~ ·l J ;;. I II -..l ~. I I . ·1 i I f developed laud is t o be acquired, ( a ) detailed -. plat or photo2r~ph of cac~ s ite to be a cquired, in sufficient detail to provide a bas is for det erni n in3 tl:at t he land is 11 dcv elo}_)e d 11 (i.e., ~ore t han 10 p ercent of t he area includes bu i ldings or ot h er stn:cture s) and t hat i "c i s located in a buil t-up po:::-tio~ of the urbw1 are~; and (b) if any st c.ndar d s tructure will b e ac~uired a.~d de~olishe d, s t at ement justif yinE i t s a cquis iti on and demoli~ion. ? Letter No~ OS-5 Pages 3; 15 -i ! I . I ~ i . I ·\ l los 122 l state~ent indi cating the sr.ount , basis , and source jof cost of real estat e services. Lette r Ne. CS- 5 · 1 Pages 8, 12 ,.r I f t. OS 1 23 OS 124 i OS 125 J l . j Statement indicating the w.1ount , basis , a.~ d source of estinat e of a cquisition cost of each parc el or group of parc el s covered by the application. Letter lfo . OS -5 Page 12 Land Acquis i t ion Policy State~ent Letter i:fo . OS - 5 Page s 13- 15 OS 126. .l .i-! - 1 If developed l and is to be a cquired, state~ent indicating e.::n.ount, basis, and source of estimated cost of demolit ion and re:noval of s"Gructures on t he la.~d. If applicable 7 include (a) description of p~oposals for relocating structur0soff sit~ and costs i.~volved; and (b) copies of bids request ed or estimates received fro~ demolition contractors. I I Letter No . OS-5 Pase 16 I . .1' -:: ·.a · ·1 I I ·1

·-: I ",l OS i27 l \ i Copies of any optio1c.s or proposed purchz.s e a grea.Zlts. with respect t o land proposed to be acquired . i

j

I I Letter Ko. OS-5 If historic s i te will be acQuired, statement Paze 13 describin~ basis for deter..iining that s i te is . of historical significance and proposals for preserving site. t ,.i . I

-

r~-:..., r

·!  . .

,· . I r· .. ,. ';.'· r ,_. I j �- A4 .:. i .0 ' Item To Ee Submitt2d ! Cod.e:Xo. / ?.e::'er To I Reloc2.tio1;. Data . ·j < -i I (Submit if applic2.tion covers 'l a cquisition of prop,ff:!:,y f :co:r, 1,hich 1 .j site occupants will be dis-placed) ) ,I OS 131 1 , , 2sti;;l~te of nu:-:ber of individuals , f~ilies , and jous~ness c~nc~rns to oe displaced fro~ p roperty ~o oe , acq_uireu. For individuals and far.:ilies, incluue breakdown by race. Lett e:.~ lfo . 0S - 5 Page 10 . s·t.ate:nent indicating t hs.t adeq_uat e relocation housing is or will be available, includine basis for deter.nining adequacy of relocation housing. Letter Ho. CS - 5 !:l "r l ·os 132 J ,_j i l'· I i Page 10 .- ' -i i· .1 ·1 OS ·133 -~ ·] J I ·! I .,I . i ' ·i I

~

Statement outlining .relocation services to be Letter No . OS-5 provided, identif ying the asency or orsanization Pag~ll., 12 to be re sponsible, o.nd describins the q_ualification~ ·of the perso:mel and/or agency to perfo::-:n the 1 serviceG. Ii' applicable, incluc e cop i e s of con"uracts or oi:.ner agreements with local renewal agency, city relocation staff, or other agency. 'l l OS I

134· ·l Est i.::ate of total -ar.J.ount of relocation payn:ents 'to ce made , in tabular f orm as sho.m in OS 135 1 ·l 'l ·i·, l -1 ·1 I I I II 1

i

·,· 1 'I ' 'lI !

.·.,, .. •,·>' : ~-~·· ;:.-·-' •,:,: · '..!--:--,.". ::, : ....., ,·.;-_

_

·._: ~-:~~-~~--~-_;:)~_:_/t,:_?=". ~-- :_·.. 'I I Letter No. OS-5 t he B!I!ou.r:.t , basis , and· source relocation services , excluding PageS ll, 12 I r elocatioi:. :payr;ient s, which will be i n cluded in I computing t he amount of the grant. Ir ·a per capita figu~e is used, indicate h ow per capita estimate va.s derived. bdicating ! Statement of es~iLated cost of i

.

I I j ·.:· . ·. 'O ,J I Letter No . OS-5 Pages 10, 11 Att achment B.

i.j

Attac~en"'i:. ,. !. I l I I I l 0 l 'i !- f-r ,r.. �I .! i l l. ·I I O· - A5 - .. _I tem •ro Ee Sub;:iitted Cod.e Ko. I i, ~efe:r ;:ro .II I • I I Development D~t a (Sub~it if a??l i cat i on covers development of l and) OS 141, e-. seq_. [Se~ Letter No . OS-6] . . . ' : .,, ~ Let"ce:: ~fo . OS -5 Po.ge 17 . I Le gtl De.t u OS 151 Re solution of applicant authoriz i ng filing of applic ation. At tach:r.~:::i.t C os ·152 Opin~on of couns el a.~d cutheJ t ic ated copies of all l aws and chart ers r e f e~red t o in the op in i on not avail able i n printed cowpilation. Attachment D OS 153 I f develope d l c.nd i s to be a c~uired and the applicant is n ot the gov~r~i ng body of t he l ocality, r es olut ion of l ocal govern inG body that u;:ideveloped or pr edo~ine.r.tly undeveloped l cr.d i s not avail able i.~ the locality for the open - spa ce u se s proposed f or the land t o be a cquired. Attacm:.ent C l '\ ll 0 .\ 1 ··1 l ·j -1 ,l . ..:tI "J ·I .,' ·i I .·! ·,j 1 ! . ·1 i J lI .\ l .. , .j

( '; ' l• i! 0 I I ! I .\ �Appendi x 11 D11 I f NON - PROFI T SPOjSORED NEW HOUSING UNDER 221( d )(3) Thi s pr ogram was auth or i zed by s e ction· 221(d)(3) of the Housing Act of 1961 . I t ·was i ntended t o produc e hou s i ng f or those who are too poor t o ren t or buy s t andard h ou s ing but n ot p oor enough to be admitted to publi c h ou s i ng . The n on - pr ofi t sponsor of a 22 l(d)(3) proj e ct obtains FHA app r ov al of the pr oj e c t, inc lud i ng a l and a pprais a l and approval of the build i ng plans . The FHA agree s to i nsure the construction advance at 100 perc ent of value for n on ~profit asso c ia t i on s . The sp onsor ob t ain s a commitment fr om t h e Government a l National Mortgage Asso c ia tion (GNMA ) to pr ovide permanent mort ga ge financing for the cowpleted pr o ject. The sponsor pays a one percent fe e to GNMA f or t h is c ommitment . The sponsor borrows money from -a pr iva t e financial institution t o pay f or the constru cti on of the pr oject. Th e construction loa n is short- t erm and bears interest at the market rate. When constr u ction is completed, GNMA pays off t he cons truct ion loan of t he private lender and issues a mortgage t o the sponsor wi th a term up to forty years and an interest rate of 3 per c ent. The s ponsor makes mortgage paymen ts directly to GNMA . 11 This interest subsidy cuts the costs of mortgage debt service by appr ox imately 40 percent, and permits rent reduction of about 25 per.cent. 11 �I - 2 - . Pt ogr am Requirements : Upp er inc ome l i mi t s f or elig i bi l ity are s e t by HUD a n d ~ e pe nd upon fami l y size and geographi c area . Us ua lly t he upper limit is set at t h -2 med i an in c ome leve l of fami l ie s i n t he a r ea . 221 ( d )( 3 ) projects must be l oca t e d in communities which h ave worka b l e progr ams . Resu l t s : "By July, 196 7, FHA ha d given commitments to proceed with a t ot 1 of 73 , 000 u i t i n 569 pr oj e ts . 11 33 , 300 or 46 per cent of t he units were und er the spons orship of limited-dividend cor porat i ons. Pr oblems : A. La ck of t e chni ca l experien c e and kn ow- h ow on p art of non - pr ofit spons ors . B. Comp lexiti e s and bottl ene ck s in proce ss i ng ap plica tion s by FHA . Pro c e s s ing time to start of construction· e stimated a t 376 working da ys. C. Upper inc ome e li g ibility limit s cl a ime d to be too r estric tiv e . Adm i nistra t i on : Most of the progr am administra ti on i s h and l e d by t h e l ocal FHA Insu r i ng Offi ce. t h i s pr ogram . The Re g ion al Off i ces of HUD p l ay a minima l r ole in At the HUD Na t i onal l e vel, pr ogram res p onsib ility is with t he As sis tant Se cr etary f or Mor t ga ge Credit, Federa l Hou sing Commissioner. Re sp on s ibil i ty is fu r t h er de le gated to t h e Assis t ant Commissioner of ~u lti=amily Hou sing of FHA . �- 3 - The 221 ( d ) ( 3 ) pr~gram i s curren ::ly b e in g phased o.u t and brou ght . under sect ion 236 of t he : ous i ng and Ur ban Dev e lopment Act of 1968. The . program r ema in s basi ca ll y the same with th e prima ry ~ ifference bein g that t he permanen t mor t gage is held by t h e pr iva t ~ lender and mort gage subsidy p~y..1cn t s arc mad e t o t he fi nanci a l i n stitution by the Federal government. Unde r 221(d)(3), the mortgage is held by GNMA and mortgage payments are ma de dir e ctly to Gl\1MA . ·' . �--·-· -· Appendix E . STATUS OF SELECTED HUD PROGRAi~ S Atlanta, Geor gia . 1. Open Space (702): 13 Projects . Projects range in size from 8 acres to 159 acres. 5 proj e cts are comp leted. Open Space (705): 2 Projects Federal Grants Disburs ements Aeer ovals Approval date 2. 3. OSA - 23 2/67 $784,544 OSA 3/68 167,966 24 Ba sic Wa ter and Sewer Grants: $729,481 . 2 Pro j e cts ws 0014 Tot al Cos t= $2,689,0 00 Construction Started ws 0025 Total Cost= $3,407,600 Construction Complete- 09/20/68 Turnkey Housing: GA - 6 - 19 8 Projects 584 units ·2nd approval delay due to rezoning GA - 6 - 20 202 units under construction Hollywood Road site GA - 6 - 21 22 0 units under construction Gilbert Road 08/27/68 �r - 2 - ,. ... GA - 6 - 23 324 un its letter of i n t ent Wallswood Apartment site. GA - 6 - 28 500 units completion da te e st. on 4/30 /70 4 stages - one 90 percent complete . GA - 6 - 29 17 5 units under construction Prison Creek - Leslie Lane GA - 6 - 30 800 units construction document approval stage East Lake Golf Cour se GA - 6 - 31 160 un i ts .development program approved Annual Contribution Contract Jone sboro Road and Adk inson Road 4. Non - Pr of it Sponsored New Hou sing Under 221(d)(3): P:::-o jec t No. Name and Spons or 10 Proj ects Mort gage Unit:s Stage of Construction* 0 61-55001 Wheat Street Gardens Wheat St . Bapt i s t Chur ch $2,975,000 280 4 061-5 5007 Al len Temp l e Dev. Inc ., Allen Temp l e AME Church $1,419~650 151 4 061 -550 16 Al l en Temple Dev. I nc., Sec. 2 . , Allen Temp l e AME Chur ch · $2,372,000 222 4 061-55024 Al l en Temple Dev. Inc., Sec. 3 . , Allen Temp l e AJ.\ffi Church $2,405,700 208 1 061-55023 Wheat Street Gardens

2, Wheat St. Bap tist Ch.

916,600 8 4. 1 �- 3 ~ t, Proicct No . Name and Sponso.r Hortgage Units Stage of Constru ction* 061-55037 Friendship ' Center Friendship Bapt ist Church $2, 535,000 208 1 061-55052 Flipper Temple Homes Flipper Temple Al'1E Church '$ 1,712,000 156 0 061-55056 Martin Luther King Village Ebenezer Baptist Church $2,975,000 · 193 o· 06 1-55053 Central Me thodist Home s Central Me thodist Church $1,3 70,000 120 0 --J 061-55057

Butler Street YMCA Apts. Butler Street \.'MCA Key of· Construction Status of Pr oj e ct 0 not started 1 - started 2 first units r eady 3 all units ready 4 - final endorsement $2,484,ooo 216 0 .. �