.MzI4OA.MzI4OA
Novembe r 28, 1969 OFFICEl O F MODEL CITIES P .ROG .RAM G73 Capitol Av1mue, S.W. Atlanta, Ga . 30315 (404 ) 577 • 5200 Iva n A lle n Jr., Mayor J. C. Johnson, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ivan Allen Mayor El ect Sam Ma ssell Executive Board Members Mr. Jack Delius Mr . Dan Sweat Mr. Collie r Gladin F ROM: J ohnny c. John s on Executive Di rec tor SUBJECT ~ La nd Ac quisition by the Southern Railroad in Pittsburgh (S e e a t t a che d map) Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Lest e r Persells Henry Bowden J"ames Pilcher Horace Ward Thomas Choyce ~ C) ·
i
ntroduction
On Novembe r 10 , 1969, t h e Mod e l Cities Program fir st became aware
o f plans o f t h e Sout h ern Rail road t o expand their exist ing storage
ya rd in the Pitts bu r gh- Me ch anics ville Area.
This mqve affe cts only
the Pittsburgh c ommunity where acqui s i tion of 15 . 2 acres of l a nd
i s p r esent l y i n p r og r e ss ; Southern is c urren tly attempting to
negotiate t h e acqu is i tion of 2~8 acres. o f Pittman Pa rk belonging
to the Ci ty o f Atlanta an d p art o f the 15.2 acre s ite.
The i r
reuse proposal ca ll s for retent i on of 11.5 acre s to b e used f or
expansion of their existing yard f ac ilitie s, while t h e remain ing
3.7 acres would be returned to the c ity f o r park use.
The rai l -
road proposes to finance t he cost o f ' con structing t h e n ew park,
including the replacement of a gymnas ium, swimming pool, and
tennis courts, all of which would be included in the initial 2.8
acre park acquisition.
�-,t, -
This pl ar raises many i ssu es and que s tion s a l l of ~ hic h will have
to b e an swered in the forthcoming weeks.
It is the e xprecs purpose
o f this memo to prepare a proper foundation for this period by
-tat ing, as accura t e ly as possible , t he events that preceded and
f o llowed our i nitial discovery
f Sonthern's plan on November 10 ,
and t he i ssues that I believe have been raised as a result .
have
I
l s o made s ome .re comrn.enda·1• ions regarding t h e course of action
we shou ld take .
The finn of Greene , Buckley , DeRinex
Agents f o r Sou.the r n Rai lroad .
& Jones,
located in the National Bank of Georgia Bu'lding i s acting
a s the ir l e gal age nt; John David Jones a nd
b -en involve~ in past discussions.
c.
Richar d McQue en have
Land acqu isition is being
handled by Adams - Cates Realty l ocated in the Hurt Building; Henry
Robinson i s ac ti vely involved in
Existir!.9 and P ro,eo sed Land Use.
h is asp e c t of t 11e p lan .
Compos i tion of the
acquisition is as follows:
Park
B siness
Housing
Streets
2.8
4.4
6.0
_b.Q
ri1
After acquisi~ion
otal
acres
acres
a.cres
acres
15.2 acres
he land wil l be used for:
Park
P ilroa.d
3.7 acres
. 11. 5 acres
•rotal
15.2 acres
1
.5. 2 acres of
�-·3-
Residential Relocation.
The number of bu i ldings and awell.i..ng units
to be acquired:
Buildings
Single Family .
. .
Units·k
.
•
63
10
Multi p le Family.
2
20
10
75
93
T\vo Fami J. y
~rotaJ.
63
The number o:... dwelling units is not an a ccu rate
indic a ti on of the rn1mber of fami li es present ly
occupying thern; overcrowding may increase this
figure .
Public Notificat·on of South ern ' s Plans
rrhese agencies initially b ecai.11e aware of South ern ' s acqui s ition
and expansion plan on t he da t es indicated:
Parks Depa r _tment
October 30
Hous ing Authority
November .S
Planning Department
November 6
Model Ci.ties Program Staff
November 10
Model Cities
Board of Directors
Novemb er 17
Model Cities
Exec utive Board
November 18
Chronology of Events {196 91
August-Septembe r
Acquisition of resident i a l property
began sometime during this period.
October 30
Southern ' s agents H. Robinson and
C. R o McQueen met with AldE.'rman
Charles Left.wich, Jack Delius, and
Stan Martin to discuss the r ailroad's
plan.
The Pa.rks Departme nt was asked
�-4-
to determine the , feasibility . of a new
park design that would exclude 2.8 acres
I
of the existing Pittman Park,
but include
I
.
the additional 3.7 acres !the railroad was
willing to swap for the excluded portion.
November 5
Southern's land agents met with the Atlanta
Housing Authority to determine the type of
relocation assistance available to occupants
of home s within the acquisition area.
Because of the unique nature of this request-
a railroad a cquiring property under the
powe r o f eminent domain in an urban renewal
area within the Mode l Cities Program-the
Authority a sked the regional office of the
Renewal As s is t ance .Administr ation ( RRA)
f o r a n op in i on.
t h at
RRA tentative ly d etermine d
n.Q fina ncial assistance was available
· under ex isti ng regulation s and contacte d
t heir home office in Washing ton, D.
c.
for
f u rth er de t e rmination.
November 6
Planning Department became aware of
So uthern ' s plan for the Pittman Park
acquisition onl y.
At this t i me the Depart-
ment arranged a meeting f o r Monday,
Novem-
ber 10 , at the Parks Department conference
Room and requested Model Cities repre-
I
• ,• I I~
•
�,:~
,;:
..~....
J ~ •
'.
...
.. -.-:.
··-
~
...·.... ..... ., .
I..
~
' -· ::.., •:t.:
, \,
'
_
.. ...
,4- ,
..
.
., .' .. e,
·-~. ·.., .....
,,
,, •
..
..:
~
- ·'-
...
.:,
' .. (
-
'
... ~: -· 1..·..
.. .
.J. · ~
.
..
.
~(:-:·· ::a:~.l rca.6
.,.
,..
.
~
.
....:..,
~
. L itl. :. "-4
..
_i--
. -...
',,.
. .c .. 11.n
.... . .....,.
. "-
,~;
, .
" _ ,.::;.,;.,.
·?:rog:c am
}. '!--J ·-
.... ""'~ ......
- .. . - . . . . .
I._J:.
• •~
....
,. .......
.....
""rnpt
-
?rog .carf. ....... .
t
~
....:.
..
�-6Pittman Park situation but e xpanded to the r e loca tion and involvement of Pittsburgh r es i dents. Mr. J o ne s reiterated t he Railroad ' s position a s expre ssed one week earl i er on November 10; the acqui sit ion of l a nd, including a portion of Pittman Park, mus t be completed as soon as possible ; the re location of people wa s not a railro ad p roblem; the rai lroad would pay the fair market value f c, r a ll p r ope rty a cquired; and that any att empts to involve r e sidents and other public agenci e Si-'1aS urdes irable b e cause it would slow down the acquisi t i.- n p roc es s . 'rhe Rail r o a d c lear ly wa nted the property acq~i red a nd facili t i es c o ns t r ucte d without de ay . Model Cities maintained an opposit e po siti on : resident involvement in a ll phases of community development is the core of the Mode l Cities Program and mu st be maintained . The formulation of p l ans affecting residents of the Model Cities Area, without thei r involvemen t , iS contrary to guidelines set up by th~ Department of Housing and Urban Development. (HUD). Suggestions were also made that would get the Rai l road involved in formula- tin~ and financing a portion of the cost of �-7re loca ting people from the propos ed acquisition area i nto new hous i ng within the Model Cities Area . It was additional y recommended that this would be an excellent opportunity for Southern to b ecome involved in the developme nt. of t h e Pittsburgh community by devi sing waya t h at wou l d assis t in impeding the further deterioration of residential s tructures in the immediate vicinity of the railroa d. (Since the railroad is responsible for this d eterioration b y creating an undesirable residential n eighbo r hood to live i n, they should bear the r e sponsibility, rath er than the public a t l a rge , for preventing t his de t erioration. ) Mr. Jones said he would convey this portion to officia l s of t h e railroad. November 17 Mr. J. c. Johnson presented Southern ' s p l an to the Model Cities Board of Directors . (See minutes - Exhib it No. 2). The Board denounce d the plans and attitude of the rail road , particularly the secretive manner by which it planned and executed its program, and addit ional ly, 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 �-8-· prope rties until their actun l int e ntions a r e known. Novembl§r 18 Model Cit ies Exe cutive Board met and lis t ened to a presentation of Southern's plan by Jim Wright. Exhibit No. 3). (See news pap er article - 'l'hey r e solved to a.sk Southern to delay its p rograrn until the full impact of their plan on Pittsburgh and t he Mode l Cities Pr ogram Pl an wa s known . November 1 9 A tentative l ega l opinion reg a rding the ut i l i zation of GUi.nent domain in making the Pi ttman Park a c q ui s ition was rec eiv e d b y J. c. J ohnson f rom the At lanta Departme nt o f Law . (See l e tter of November 1 7 , 1 9 69 - E:-chib i t No. 4) . The opin i on said i n effec t, that the Ci ty ' .:, ownership and u se of Pit t man Pa rk was a superior governmental use which could not be acqu ired by the railroad t h rougl. its eminent domain power . Issues 1. Resident Involvement. Lack of a ny a.tt~mpt to solicit the involve- ment of residents in t he planning phase of this developm -·nt. This represents a flagrant violation of the requirements and intentions of the Model Cities P .ogra-m as e:itpres-:::;ed by Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the City of Atlanta. If this is allev;ed to continue it will result in de s truct ion of the trust residents now have for the progr9-m as a means for improving �-9- the ir own neighborhoods . 'I'he re can b e no excepti ons fo r ex- c luding re ide nt involvement . 2. Acquis ition of a Portion of P,.t.tman Park. The Mode l Cities Plan identifies the Park as presently be ing below standards set up b y the Prog r am and by the City o f At lanta in it s Parks and Recreation Plan. This de ficie ncy is i n terms of acres, and in fac ilities by which people can en j y the park such a s basebal l diamonds , r e c r eation center, etc. '11 h e Plan a l so anticipate d acquiring th e entire Foy Brick Company in later stages o f the Program: t he use, of cou r se , would have b een a pa.rk a ddition. The r eas on for not propos ing ·1-he acquisition of a djace nt resident i a l property fo r eventua l p ark use was bec a us e the Pittsbur gh c ommunity , i n seve r a l meet i ngs , was again s t s uch a move . The re l at i ve l y goo d structu ral condi tions of these homes a n d t h e p r eservation o f s ocia l ties between n eighbo rs was more i mpo rtant t o th-3se people. Th e rai l road , on t h e other hand , has not con sidered these f acts. After acquisition, wh i ch includes 30 dwe ll i n g un i ts to be removed expressly for park expans i on a nd the Foy Brick Company, park acreage will increase about one acre. Th~s is one more acre t.han the ark now contains, meaning that it will continue to b e substandard. But more important, it means that any plan to bring it up to standards by increas ing its acreage in the future will m0an that additional homes will have to be acquired. �-10 conseque ntly, t h e Railroad has e very thing t o g a in and the Pitts burgh communit y h as ,z verything to los e - its p e opl e , it s homes, and the anticipa ion of enjoying a l a r g er p ark in t h e f ut ure . 3~
Oi sreqa r d f or the Future Developme n t of Pittsburg}~.
'r h e
So u thern Ra ilroa d has compl e t e y disreg a rded e x ist ing p lan s
f o r Pi t tsburgh .
This include s t h e City's 1983 Land Use
Pl a n , t h e City ' "' Park s an d Re cre a tion Plan, and Model Cit i es
Program Pl ans for the are a .
Th ese p lans represent a sub-
stan t i al nu.'11ber of hou r s on the p a rt of the a g enc i es inv olved
and the res i dents affected.
The c o st o f preparing the s e
d ocumen ts whi c h r e fl ects , i n th i s case , the d e sires a nd
aspirat ions o f Mode l Citie s resi ·.ents is not a l i g h t
con s ideration.
It cannot be di s regarded .
'J'he Ra ilro ad claims i t s acquis i t i on of h omes t o provi d e itse lf
with more yard faci l iti es i s j ustified for two reasons.
F -' rs t ,
that the space is needed to accommodate the outpu t of Ge neral
Motors; the intention is tha - more business (if this is
actually the Ci'J.se ) wi 11 benefit the city as a whole in the
long run.
Thi s kind of think.'ng-egotistical, one-sided,
narrow minded , a nd with the doll ar i n mind as the ult imate
objective-is responsible for destroying central city neighborhoods throughout the countryft
It is one of the reasons
why Congress has found the n eed for a Model Cities Program.
And natura11y it is completely oppos·te t h e short run1
coor iinated, and comprehensive approach of this Prograrn
�-11-
t owa rds i mproving t h e l i f e of peop le l i ving in the a rea and
partic i pating in the Prog rrun .
I think that t his r eas on ing ic: i nv a lid within the boundaries
of this Prog r am .
The short run time period is unquestionably
mo re critical to Pi t t sbu gh -esiden ts th an it i s to t h e
ques tion abl e long run n ee ds of the Ci t-y, t 1,e Sou thern Rail r oad,
and Gener a l Motors -in thi s instan ce.
On th e second r e a s on, Southern believes it is doing- a serv i ce
to · h e Ci ty b y r emoving s ubstandard structure s in the path of
i t s p r opo sed yard facilities.
If the struc ture s are s ub -
standar d t o the d e gre e South ern claims,
(a nd this is que stionable),
t h en it is b ecau se of t h eir nearness t o t h e ra il.ro a d.
'
to l i v e near a rai l r o a d ya r d?
Who want s
Th e people wh o c an affo r d t o
l i ve on this resi d en t ial l y margina
l and h ave extrem . d i ffi cult y
in maintaining their homes beca u se o f t h ei r l ow income and t h e
high cost of materials and labor u sed in home repa i rs.
(B ecau se
the homes are marginal doe s n't mc~an t he people are marginal
o:r undesirable).
It can be predicted with reasonable certainty t h at once the
yar d is constructe d as presently planned , the adjacent buildings
will deteriorate over the years.
In a similar manner to the
present situation, Southern ls laying the groundo10 rk for another
claim when the need for additional yard fa.cili ties arises g that
they are doing a service to the City by removing them.
�-124.
Res iden t Re locat i o n.
The Mo de l Cities Pr.O:Jram has cont inua l l y
maintai ne d tha t residents will be given the op portunity t o
remain in t hei r ne ighborho od in t h e event t1ey had t o b e
r e loc ated.
W.it h opportun i t y there mus t be choice .
'l'h e lack
o f standa rd &vel li.ng unit s within the area h a s p l a ced t his
burden of p r ovi d i ng choice on t h e p rovi s ion o f t emporary
hous i ng un i t s .
Occupancy of tempo r ary un it s wou ld be until
s uc h t ime as permanent s t ruc ture s were built.
'rhis me thod
· repres ent s t h e f oundation of t he Mode l Cities Re l o c ation Plan
and without it t h e re wi l l be no publ i c r elocat ion of f ami l i e s
to provide l a nd fo r a ny fa c i lity .
Furthe rmore , fin anc ial assistance from the Mode l Cities Program
a nd t h e Ne ighbo r hooq. Dev elopment Program (NDP ) will mak e t h e
di f f i cult i es o f mov i ng eae: .ie r f or al l pe op l e who must b e rel cated .
This inclu des tenants a nd homeown ers ~
The f o rme r r e c e i ve moving
expe ns e s and t h e latter r ec e i ve moving expenses ~nd up to $5 ,000
in d i f fe r ential pay~1ent s: they are p a id the differe nce in cost
($5 ,000 maximum) f r om the pr ice rec e i ve d f o r the i r a cq•dred
p roperty and the cost of buying a simi l ar s i z<:1d home .
'rhe approximately 1 00 f amiJ. ies t o b e re located by Southe rn ' s
acquisition wi l l receive none of thi s assistance.
The use
of eminent doma i n, or the thr eat o f i t, wi ll not benefit these
re l ocatees.
·rhey wi ll not b e e ligibl e f o r temporary h o u sing
b e caus e none is available at this time .
And they will not
receive moving expenses and differential payments since they
are not part of the NDP or part of an acquisition by a public
�-13-
agency wor1dng with the
Mode l Cities Program.
Again,. the people do not benefit and actually become the recipients
.
.
I
.
,
.
of inequitable treatment as a r e sult of Southern's 1non-part1.c1.pa-
!
tion in the Model Cities Program.
5.
Acquiring Pittman Park b y the Power of Eminent Domain.
Can
I
Southern Railroad-a public utility-exercise its delegated power
c:>f eminent domain in the acquisition of 2.8 acres of Pittman
~
l?.ark?
The question is important because its answer may detennine
the ' s uccess or failure of Southern's venture.
If the answer is ;
"yes", then there is probably nothing constructive that Pittsburgh
residents can do to pre vent the plans's completion.
I
If "no",
.I
t i en it m~y be possible to negotiate with the railroad ori the
I
i r ues a~ready rais e d-.
11.. \ tentative
finding from the City Attorney's office indicates
t ~ e railroad does not have the power in this case,
(See Exhibit
'i
Nr- ·4),
•-,J
I·'
I
,.··
I
.i .
'
�-14.-
Conclusions and Re commenda tion s
It is clearly evident tha t the Southern Railroad is determined to
fulfill its plans in the most expedient manner.
The secrecy at
whic h they acquired property and the concealment o f information
regarding their intent ions until the last possible moment leaves
c onsiderable doubt i n my mi1d a s to what public they rep resent.
It is obviously not the 45,000 residents of Model Cities or the
s.ooo
in Pittsburgh .
As with repre s e ntation, t h e ques tion of beneficiari e s is raised.
Who benE:fits directly from expans ion of the existing facilities?
Obvious ly the manag ement and stockholders of Southern Railroad
and Gen eral Mo t ors enj oy the fru its o f thi s par ticul a r v enture .
'l'he Pitts b urgh c ommunity s u f f e rs for t hi s plan will b e to the ir
d etri ment.
This negative e ffe ct · s t h e ver'y s ought of s i t ua t i on Congre s s had
in mind when i t e n act e d Mo de l Cit ie s l egis lation in 1966.
The
obj ect i ve of which was to sub st antially i mprove t h e environme n t
i n s l um and blighted areas o f cities.
Here we h Rv e a good exampl e
o f h ow no~ to improve t h e environment ; t h e placement of a rai l r oad
yard in a residential n eighborhood is unequivocally con trary to
every known principle of envi ronmental h eal t h a nd safety; and social
stability.
Southern' s argu.i.-uents o f bus i ness need and city service
do not justify the predict.able destruct i on of a neigr..borhood.
Do
these reasons take priority over the objectives of the Model Cities
Program?
Do they justify Southern's disregard for involving residents
and public agencies who di}igent l y worked to establish plans
�-15for creating a bette r place to live in?
Do they justify side
steppi ng a host of socia ., economic, a nd physical problems-- and
creating more in the process-that this Program is committed to
solving ?
Maybe these questions p o int to the r al reason
for Southern's secretive approach !
But th e plans are no..-1 pu.'blic and we f i nd ourselves with a set of
fact s -and a challenge: ·Reve rsing the hi s torical process .
the ra ' lroad aware of the prob l ems it is creating,
Ivi.ake
and ask them
to j oin us in findi ng an acceptable s olution, for them a n d for
the resident s of Pitts burgh.
Thi s appr o a ch must be through negotiation.
which is resident involvement.
'11 h e
'I'he: prere quisit e of
rang e to neg o iating is
between no e x pansio n of yard f a cilitie s , to e x pans i o n of the
fa c i l iti es with a n impro v e me nt to the surroun d ing area.
These
i mprov ements wou l d c on s ist o f high quality buf f e r i ng b etween
t h e yards and r e sidential p r operty;
a
park that i s up to c ity
standards in tenns o f land and fa cilities ; a n underpass a t
McDaniel Strc~et
~
an adequate .rel ocat i on p rogra..'1\ for t h e peopl e
to be displ-3.ced ini::::luding the opport un ity t o rema in in th is area ;
and an adequately des igned street system to serve the unu sual
pattern that would result if the yard were b u ilt.
Thi s endeavor would have to be high ly coordinated and thoroughly
managed.
Resident involvement must be solicited and channeled
into the direction that would insure ma,"{imum impact on negotiations.
�-16 -
Pub:L i c re l a t i ons mu s t b e mobi l ized and p r epa red f or t he c onfront a tions t hat wi ll occur.
An image o f a unite d f r o nt will h a v e t o be
main~a i ned in o rder to i nc rea s
b e ne fi ts f rom negot i ation.
t h e chances o f r e c eiving t he mo s t
In sho rt,
t h i s a pproa c.1, mu"' t b e
thoroughly planned a nd manag e d.
As a fir s t s t e p, I wou l d r e commend a h a.lt t o t h e r ail r oad ' s
acquisi tion p rograrn.
Thi s may b e volunt ary or b e a n injunct, ion
which shou ld be i n i ti ated b y a r es ident c ommitte ,;-pos sibly one
s et ' u p to c op e with the r ail r oad p rob l em- an adh oc group.
Si mult ne ously, support from othe r pub l ic a.g e ncies must b e
sol ic it e d.
The Parks Department and Pl a nning De par tme nt,
a n d p e rhaps othe r s ,. must ag r e e in p rinc i p l e at leas t, t o pre ve nt
t h e ra ilr o ad f r om inva l i d ating t h eir p l a ns fo r ~he a r ea .
(Afte r
a ll, that ' s what they ma i n-a ·n when we prese nt p l a n s di ff eren t
from theirs ) .
In summary , we must (1) d etermine what po sition a nd action the
Program will take ; (2) a ppoint a coo r din a to r ; ( 3 ) s o lic i t res ident
approva l for interv ention; ctnd fina lly ,
appropriate public agencies.
(4) i nsure s upport from
�
