.MzI4MQ.MzI4MQ

November 28, 1969 Ivan Allen Jr .• Mayor J. C. Johnson, Olrcctor MEMORM.1DUM TO: Mayor Ivan . Allen Mayor Elect Sam Mas sell Executive Board Members Mr. Jack Delius Mr. Dan Sweat Mr. Collier Gladin FROM: Johnny C. Johnson Executive Director SUBJECT: Land Acquisition by the Southern Railroad in Pittsburgh (S e e attached ma p) Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr4 Mr. Lester Persells Henry Bowden James Pilcher Horace War d Thomas Choyce ~ ~ Introduction On Novembe r 10, 1969, the Mode l Cities Program first became aware of p l ans of the Southern Railroad t o expand their exi sting storage yard in the Pittsburgh-Mechanicsville Area. This move affects only the Pittsbu rgh community where acqui s i t ion o f 15.2 acres of land is presently in progress; Southern is currently at tempt ing to negotiate t h e acquisition of 2.8 acres of Pittman Park bel onging to the City of Atlanta and part of the 15 . 2 acre site. Their reuse proposal calls for retention of 11.5 acres to be used for expansion of their exist ing yard facilities, while the remaining 3 .7 acres would be returned to the city for park use. The rail- road proposes to finance the cost of ' constructing the new park, including the replacement of a gymnasium, swimming pool, and tennis courts, all of which would be included in the initial 2.8 acre park acquisition. �- c.Thi s p l an r aises many i ssues and que s tio ns a ll of w~ich will hav e t o be answe red in the forthcoming we el:.s . It i s t l1e e xpress pur pose of t h.is memo to prepare a p r oper fo unda t · on for thi"' pe rio d by s tat i ng, a s accura tely as p o s s i·; le , t he events t hat prec e ded and fol lowed o ur i nitial di s cove ry of Sout h e rn ' s pl an on No vembe r 10, a n d the i ss ues that I believe have b een r a ised as a r e sult . I hav e a l so made some .re commendation s regardi n g t h e c ourse of actio n we s hou l d take. Agen ts for Southe r n Rai l r oad . & The f irm o f Gree ne , Buc kley , De Ri nex J ones , located i n the Nat iona l Bank of Ge orgi a Buildi ng i s a c t ing- a s thei r legal age n t; Tohn Davi d J on es and C. Ri ch ard McQueen hav e b een invol ve d in past discuss ions. Land acqui sitio n i s b e ing handled by Adams-Cate s Realty l o c ated i n the Hu r t Bu ilding ~ He n ry Rob in son is act i vely i nvo lved in thi s a s pec t Ex isting and Pro,2o sed La n d Us e . Compo s i tion o f the 15. 2 <cres of a c quisitio n is a s fol l ows: P ark . B s iness 2.• 8 acres 4 . 4 acres 6 . 0 acre s ....b.Q. ac re s . Hou s ing Street s 'J.' o t a l 1 5 . 2 ac r es After acqu'sition t h e land wi ll be used fo r: Park l<d:i. J. road . . Tota.1 o f t h e p l an. 3. 7 ac ;:es 1 1.5 acres 1 5.2 acres �-3- Residential Relocation. 1'he nw1tber of buil d ings and clwellirn,J un i ts to be acqui r ed: Bu ildings Singl e Fami l y . . 2 63 20 10 75 93 63 10 Fam i ly . ' . Mul t i ple Family . 'J;WO Total

N ,te:

The number of c1·.,.1e l ling unit s is not an a ccurate j ndication- of the number of fami l ies presently occupyin g them; o verc rowd i ng may i ncre ase this figure. Public Notifi cation of South ern ' s Plans 'i1hese agencies initially bec ame aware of So uthern ' s acquisition and expan sion plan on the dat es indicated : Parks Depa~tment October 30 Housing Autho rity Nov ember 5 Planning Department Nove mber 6 Mode l Cities Program Staff November 10 Mod e l Citie s Board of Directors November 17 Mode l Citi e s Executiv e Board Nove mber 18 Chronology of .G.~ent s August-S~ptemb e r (1969) Acquisition of reside nti a l p r o~crty began s ometime during thi s period • .Q_c'tober 30 Southern's agents H. Robinson and C . Ro McQueen me t wit h Al dE.·rma n Char l es Leftwich, Jack De lius , and Stan Mart in to dis cuss the r ail road 's p l an. The Pa.rk s Department wa s ask e d �-4- t o determine the feasibility o f a new park desig n that woul d exc lude 2.8 a cres Qf t h e existing Pittman Park , but include the additional 3. 7 a.cres the ra ilroad was willing t o s wap fo r. t h e excluded po r tion. November 5 Southern's land ag ents met with the Atlanta Housing Autho rity to de -e rmine the type of relocation assi s tance a va ilable to occupants of homes wi thin the acqui s ition area . Because of the unique nature of this r e que s ta railroad acqu iring property under the power of eminent domain in a n urban renewal area with in t h e Model Cities Program-the Authority asked the regiona l offic e of the Renewa l Ass i stance.Admini strat i on (RRA ) for an opinion. RRA tentatively determined that .!2Q. financial assistance was available under existing regulations and contacted their home office in Washington, D. C. for further determina ion. Novembi:..r 6 Planning Department became aware of ~3outh ern' s plan for the Pittman Park acquisition only. At this time the Depart- ment a.rranged a meeting for Monday, Novem- ber 10, at the Parks Department Conference Room and reques ed Model Cities repre- �-5- sentatives to attend . November 10 Mode l Cities became aware of Southern ' s plans for the entire yard exp ansion at a meeting in the offic es of the Parks Departmen t. (See memo of November 11, 1969 - Exhibit No. 1). In addition to the · nformation in the Nov<~mber 11 memo, Southern 1 s agents expressed a strong desire to acquir e all the property in the shortest t ime pos s ible and also sugges t ed that Alderman Leftwich, Cha irman of the Parks Committ ee, gave te ntative approval to swap pa rk l and fo r railroad land. In a ddition, they u r ged a ll in attendance t o k eep t h eir plan as secret or qu i et as poss i ble. The reason for this insistance was, according to them, to prevent the apprec i ation of l and values within their acq u isition ar ea . Nove111ber 1 7 Legal agents of Southern Railroad, J. D. Jones and c. R. McQueen met with J.C. Johnson, J im Wright, and Lou Orosz, of the Model Cities Program in their offices. The meeting was arranged by Stan Martin of the Parks Department. This represented the first direct attempt of Southern to involve the Model Cities Program in its plans. D£scussion initially centered about the �- 6- Pittrnan Park sit uat ion but expanded to t he r e loc a tion and invo l vement of Pit tsb u rgh resi de n ts . Mr. J·o n es reiterat e d the Railroad ' s p o sit i on as expresse d on e week ear l ier on Novembe r 10; the a cqui s ition of l a nd, includin g a po rtion of Pitt man Park , mus t be comp le t ed as soon as p o ss ibl e ; t h e relocation o f p eople was not a ra ilroad p r oble m; t he r a ilroad would pay t h e fa i r marke t v a l ue f o r a ll property acqu ired ; a nd that any att empts to i nvc}.u e residents and other public a gencieswas urdesira.b l e b e cause it wo u l d slow down the acquis i t ion p roc e s s . The Rai l r o ad c l early wanted t h e property acquired and faciliti es construct ed without d J.ay. Mode l Cities ma int ained an opposi t e position: resident invo lvement in all phases of commun i ty development js the c ore of the Mode l Cities Program and must be maintained. The form u lation of p l ans affecting residents of the Model Cities Area , without the ir involvement , is contrary to guidelines set up by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (HUD). Suggestions we re also made that ,\1ould get the Railroad involved in formula- ting and financing a portion of the cost of �-7- relocating people from the propos e d acquis ition area into new housing within the Model Cit i es Area. I t was additionally recommended that this would be an excellent opportunity for Southern to become involved in the develop ment of the Pittsburgh com.,.'llunity by devising ways t h nt would assist in impeding the further det erioration of res idential structures in the i1runediate vicinity of the railroad. (Since the railroad is responsible for this deteri- oration b y creating- an undesirable residential neighbo r hood to live i n, they should bea r the respons ibj. lity, rather than the public at l arge , for prev enting this deter iorat ion.) Mr. Jones said he would conv ey this portion to official s of the rai l road. November 17 Mr. J.C . Johnson presented Southern ' s plan to the Mode l Cit i es Board of Directors . minutes - Exhibit No. 2). (S ee The Board denounce d the plans and attitude of the railroad, particu larly the secretive manner by which it planned and execu ·ed its prograrn, and additionally, their total disregard for involving residents and the Program staff. Finally the Board passed a resolution urging the Model Cities Executive Board to request the Southern Railroad to cease buying �-8properties tmtil. thei·. actual intentions are known . November 18 Model Cities Executive Board met and listened to a presentation o f Southern ' s plan by Jim Wright. Exhibit No. 3). (See newspape r article - They resolved to ask Sout hern to delay its program until the full impact of their plan on Pittsburgh and the Mode l Cities Program Plan was known. Novenber 19 A tentative legal o p inion regarding the utilization of eminent dorna.in in making the Pittman J. ark a cquisit i on was rece ived b y c. Johnson from the At lanta Department o f Law . (S ee l e tter of No!Jerober 17, 1969 - Exhibit No. 4) . The opinion said in effect, -hat the City's ownership and u se of Pit t- ma.n Park was a superior governmental use which could not be acquired by the rail road through its eminent domain power. Issues 1. Resident Involvement. Lack of any attempt to solicit the involve- ment of residents i n the planning phase of th.is development. This represents a flagrant violation of the requirements and intentions of the Model Cities Program as e:apressed by congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the City of Atlanta. If this is allo-wed to continue it will result in destruction of th~ trust residents now have for the program as a means for improving �-9the ir own n 8 ighborhood s. The re can be n.o . e x ceptions f o r e x - cluding resident involvement. 2. Acqui s ition of a Portion of Pi ttman Pa rk . The Model Citie s Plan identifies the Pa ~ t a s presently b e i ng below sta ndards s e t up b y the .P rogram and by the City o f Atlant a in it s Parks and Re cre ation Plan. This deficiency is in t e rms of acre s , and in f a cilities by which people can e n j oy t h e p a rk such a s b a s eb a ll diamonds , rec reation c e nt er, e t c . '11 he Pl an ~l s o anticipat e d acquiring the entire Fo y Brick Company i n later stages o f t he Program; i-he u s e, o f course , wo uld have b een a p ark additi n. The reason f o r not p r opo s ing the acqu i s i t ion of a djacen t resident i a l p r operty f o r even tua l p ark u s e was bec a u s e the P itt s bu rgh c ommuni ty , i n s ~vera l meet i ngs , was again s t s uch a move. The re l at i ve l y good struct u ral conditions of these homes and the preservation of soc i a l ties between neighbo rs was more importr.tnt to tha se people. Th e railroad, on the o the r hand , h as not considered these facts. After acquisition, which i ncludes 30 dwel l ing units to be removed expressly for park expansion and the Foy Brick Company, park acreage will increas e about one acre. This i s one more acre than the park now c<..-ir1tains, meaning that it will continue to be s ubstandard. But more important, it means that a ny plan to bring it up to standards by increas ing its 21.c.r:eage i:n the future will mean that additional homes will have to be acquired. �-10- Consequently, the Railroad has everything to gain and the Pittsburgh community has everyth i ng to los e-- its people, its homes , a nd the anticipation of enj oying a larger park in t h e future. 3. Disreqard for the Future Development o f Pittsburgh . The Southern Railroad has compl ete ly disreg a rde d existing plans for Pittsburgh. This include s the City's 198 3 Land Us e Plan , the City ' s Parks ad Recreation Plan, and Model Cities Program Plan:- for the area. ·rhe se p lans represent a s ub- stantial number of hours on the part of the agencies involved and the residents affected. The c ost of pre paring these docume nts which refl.,.ct s , in thi s case , the desires and aspirations of Model Citi e s resident s is not a light con sid e r at ' on. It cannot be disregarded. The Railroad claims it s acquisit ion of heroes to provide itself with more ya r d facilities is jus tified for two reasons. Firs t, that the space is needed to accommodate the output of General Motors; the ~ntention is t h at more business (i f this is actually t h e case) will bene fit the city a s a whole in t h e long run. Thi s kind of think 'ng-egotistica l, one-sided, narrow minded , and with the dollar i n mind as the ul timate ob j ect ive -is respon sibl e for destroying central city neighborhoods throughout he country« rt is one of the reasons why Congress has found the need for a M.oc1eJ Cities Program. And natura,J.ly it is completely opposite t he short run, coordinated, and comprehensive approach of this Program �-LL - towards improving the life of people livin9 in the area and part icipating in t he Prog rarn. I think that this reason ing is i nvaldd within the boundaries of thi s Program. The short nm time period is unquestionably mor e critica l to Pitt sbu r gh residents than it i s to the ques tionable long run needs of the City , t he Southe rn Rail r oad, and General Motors-in this in stance. On the ~econd reason , Southern believes it is doing a servic e to t h e City b y removing substandard structures in the path of i ts proposed yard facilitie s . If the structures are s ub - stand ard to the degree Southe r n claims , (and this is que s t ionable} , then it is because of their nearness to the railroad. to live near a railroad yard? Who wants The people who can afford to live on this resident.' al ly margina.l land h ave extreme diff iculty in maintaining their homes because o f their low income and the high cost of materials and labor u sed in home repairs. (Because the homes are marginal doesn't mean the people are marginal or undesirable). It can be predicted with reasonable certainty that once the yar.d is constructed as presently planned , the adjacent buildings will deteriorate over the years. In a similar manner to the pres e nt situation, Southern is laying the groundvo rk for another claim when the need for additional yard facilities arises, that they are doing a service to the City by removing them. �-1 2- 4. Res ident Relocation. 'l'he Mod e l Ci t i e s Pr.ogr aJTI h a s cont i nually maint aine d t hat residen ts will be given t h e oppor tunity t o remain in t he ir ne i ghborhood i n t h e e vent t hey had to be re located . With oppo r t un i ty th ere must be cho i c e. '1,h e lac k o f s tanda r d dwe l ling unit s within the area h as p l a ced this b u rden of p r ov i d ing choice on the provi s ion o f tempo rc r y ho using un i t s . Occupa nc y o f tempo rary un its wo u ld b e unt i l such t i.me as pe r manent s truc t ure s were built . 'I'his me thod rep r esents t h e fou ndat ion of the Mode l ~i t i es Relocation Plan and without it the r e wil l be no pub lic relocation of fami li es to provide lund for any faci l ity . Furthermore , fi nan c ial assistance from the Mode l Cities Program and the Neighbor:hooq. Development Pr ogram (NDP) wil l make t h e d ' fficulties of moving easier for all peo ple wh o must be re located. This includes tenants and h omeowners. The former receive moving expenses and t h e l atter rece i ve moving expen ses and up to $5,0 00 in diff erential pa.yments: t h ey are paid the d ifference in co st ($5,000 maximum ) from the price received for \..he i r acquired property and the cost of buying a similar sized home~ Th e approximately 100 families to be relocated by Southern's acquisitior will receive none of this assistance. The use of eminent domain, or the threat of it, will not benefit t he se relocatees. They will not be eligible for t emporary housing because none is available at this time. And they will not receive moving expenses and differential payments since they are not pa.rt of the NDP or part of an acquisition by a public �-1 3- agency work i ng wi th the Mode l Cities Program . Again , the people do not benef i.t a nd actua.l.ly b e come the recipients o f inequitable t r eatme nt as a r esult o f Southern 's non -part i c ipatio n in the Model Cities Program. 5. Ac quiring Pi ttman Park by t he P9wer of Emine n t Domain . Can Southern Railroa d-a p ublic uti li ty- exerc ise i ts delegated power o f emin ent domain in the acqu islt i on o f 2 .8 a c res of Pi ttman· P.ark? 'rhe qu e stion i s importa nt b ecau se i ts answer may determine t h e s uccess or fai l u r e of Southern ' s venture. If the answer is "yes", the n there is probably not hing construc t ive that Pittsburgh residents can do to preven t the plans 1 s complet i on. If "no 11 , then i t !nay be poss ible t.o negotiate with the railroad on the i ssues al r eady rai sed. A te1tat ive finding from t11e City Atto r ney ' s o ffice indicates the railroad does n o t have the power in this case. No. 4) • (See Exhibit �-14- conclusions and Recommendations It is clearl y evident tha t the~ souther n Railroad is det ermined to fu l fill its p l a 1s i n the most expedien t manner. 'J~he secrecy a t which they a cquired property and the conc eal ment of information regarding their intentions unti l the last possible mome n t leaves considerable doubt i n my mind as to what publ i c they represent . It is obviously not t h e 45,00 0 res i dents of Model Cities or the 8,000 in Pittsburgh. As with repres e ntation, the quest i on of benefic i aries is raised. Who b en e fit s dire ctly from expansion of t h e existing facilities? Obviously the management and stock holders of Southern Railroad a nd Gener a l Motors enjoy the fru i ts of this particul a r v enture. The Pittsburgh community suffers for this plan will be to the i r detrime nt ~ Thi s negative e f fect is the v e ry sought of situation Congress had in mind when it e nacted Model Cit ies l e gislation in 1966. The objec tive of which was to s ubst antia lly impr ove t h e e nvi r onment i n slum an d b l i ghted areas o f cities . Here we h av e a goo d example of h ow !l2.:!:. t o i mprove the e nvironment; the placement o f a rai l r oad yard in a res identia l neighbo r hood is une quivocally c ontrary to e very known principle o f envir onme nt a l healt h and s afe ty, and social s tabil ity. Southern's arguments of bus ine ss need a nd c i ty service do not j ustify the predictabl e destruct i on o f a nei ghborh oode Do t h ese reasons take priority over the - ob j ectives of the Model ·cities Program? Do they justify Sou t h ern's disregard for involving residents and public agencies who di l igent ly worked to establish plans �-15f o r creating a bet ter p l a ce to live in ? Do th0y justi fy s i de st epping a h o st o f soc ial, econom i c , · .nd phys i ca l problems- and creat i ng mor e in the pro cess - - t hat thi · ':ro gra..m is committe d t o sol ving·? Maybe these qu est i ons point to the real reas o n f o r So u thern' s sec retive approac h ! But t h e plans are now p ub l ic a nd we find ourse lve s with a s e t o f f a ct s-- an d a chal l e ng e : Revers ing the h i s toric a l pro cess . the ra 'l:r.oad aware o f the problems it i s c re ating, MakG and a sk them to j oin u s in find i ng a n a cc e p table solution, f or t h em and f o r the r esident s of Pittsburgh. Th is appr o ach mus t b e t hrough nego t i atio n . which i s res i dent invo l v eme nt. Th e p r erequi site o f The r a ng e to n e got i ating is between no expansion of yard facilities , to expansion of the facilities with an i mprovement to t h e s urrounding area. These improvements would consist of h.~gh qua l ity b uffering between the yards and .residential property; a park that is up to city standards in terms of Jand and facilities; an underpass at McDaniel Street; an adequate relocation program for the people to be displaced including the opportunity to remain in this area; and an adequately designed street system to serve the unusual pattern that would result if the yard were built. This endeavor would have to be highly coordinated and thoroughly managed. Resident involvement must be solicited and channeled into the direction that would insure maximum impact on negotiations. �-16- Public re lations must be mobiliz e d and p repa r e d for the c on fronta tions that will occur. An image of a united front will have t o be maintained in orde r t o inc rease the chance s o f receiving the most b e n e fit s from negot iation. In short, t hi s approa ch must be thoroughly planned and managed. As a firs t step, I wou l d re comrnend a h alt to the railroad's acqu is ition program. 'rhis may b e vo lunt ary or be an i nj unct i on which sho ld b e initia.ted 1Jy a r es i dent c ommittee-poss ibly one s e t· up b., cope with the r a ilr o ad problem-an adhoc group. Simultaneously, suppo r t from other public agencies mus t be sol i cited. The Parks Department and Planning Department, a n d perhaps othersr must agree in p r i nciple at l east , to pre vent the railroad from inva lidating t h eir p l ans for the area. (After al l, that 's what they main- ~ain when we present p l ans diffe ent from theirs) . In summary, we must {1) detenuine what position and action the Program will take; ( 2) appo i nt a coordinator; approva l for intervention; and fin ally, ( 3) solicit resident (4 ) insure support from appropriate public agencies. . �