.OTE4.OTE4

ATLANTA,Gll!:ORGIA ROUTE SLIP TO: ~• FROM: Dan E. Sweat, Jr. D For your information D Please refer to the attached corres pondence and -make the necessary reply. D Advise me the status of the attached. <.Q~ ? . F ORM 25-4-S �I Aug ust 6,, 1968 Mr . Edwar d H . Baxter Regional Admin istrato r Department of H ousing and Urban Dev e lopment 645 Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, G e orgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter; I have bec ome inc reasingly concerned with the c onditions existing in an area of Atlanta that is designated as the Bedford-Pine Urban Redevelopment Area , Ga R-101. I have recently made several tours of this area and find the structures in an extremely bad and often dangerous state of repair. In reviewing this with the City's Building Inspectol', he has advised me of the practical difficulties that he has in requiring a p:roperty owner to make a substantial investment when it is anticipated that the property will oon be acquired as a result of urban renewal. The City already has expended over $1,600,000 of its own fwids in this area to acquire street and sew r rights of way s well s properties of thos persons who, if was felt, w re uffering a ev r hardship because of the impending urban renewal ctiv!ty. It is now obvious th t ev ry l'esident nd property owner in this rea is suff .ring a hardship and the City Comptroller has advised me that,. even lf funds were avail bl ,. there is considerable risk involved in dvancing funds for any further acquisitions that -re outside letter of consent areas . This ls because of the rule that requires us to · ccept the amount we paid, or th pprai ed value, which ver is lower , at the time we eventu Uy r · sell the pl"op rty to th proj ct. l m co · lzant of the f ct that th combin tion of th origin 1 Butt rmilk Bottoms, R -91, Proj ct with th Bedfoa-d ... Pin P:roj ct,. R .. 101, Project, �/ Mr . Baxter Page Two August 6, 1968 after we had received Part I approval on the original project, may have caused some problems and delays that might not otherwise have occurred , I am sure that any such delays were caused by factors occurring at all levels , including our own. Regardless of the reasons for the delays, however, I am sure that you can appreciate the plight of the residents of this area as a result of living with the impending urban renewal activity for this period of time , The situation in this area is now critical. In reviewing the situation with everyone concerned, it seems to be the concensus thnt immediate approval of the urban renewal project would be the single most effective factor in meeting the problem. For this r ason , this letter is to request that the processing of this application be placed on an emergency status . I would sincerely appreciate any assistance that you personally can provide in obtaining this approval as quickly as possible . Needless to say , your continued cooperation and assistance in helping Atlanta me et its problems is very much · ppreciated. Sincerely yours, Ivan All n , M yor lAJr:fy cc~ Mr . John Edmund J.,.-. , �/ BEDFORD-.PINE URBA N REDEVELOPMENT AREA, GA R-101 CHDONICAL OF EVENTS A UGUST 6, 1968 November 27, 1963 R-91 S urvey & Planning A pplic ations filed February 4, 1964 GNRP Application authorized by Board of A ldermen February 27, 1964 GNRP Application filed April 3, 1964 R-91 Survey & Planning approved May 6, 1964 Contract for R -91 planning services executed June 9 , 1964 GNRP Application a p proved July 17., 1964 ELA - A ud itodum area submitted GNRP terminated by C i ty S & P , R-101, authorized July 20, 1964 R-101 Survey &: Planning Application submitted N ovember 17, 1965 R -101 S urvey & Planning Application approved February 2, 1966 R - 101 contract for planning s ervice a e x ecuted Ma rch 7. 1966 E L A -Hill School site s ubm itted J une 15, 1966 Sub m itt d P artl, R - 91 Sept mb r 20 , 1967 Combined S & P Applic t ion., R-91,-R -10~ submitte d Novemb- r 30, 1967 F b ruary 5, 1968 Combined Surv y & P l anning pproved S ubmitted Part I, R -101 Definitions : Original B utterm ilk Bottom s P r oj ct Area d e s i gnation R-101 . Ori · a.1 Bedford ... Pin Project de sign tlon nd, late r, the d s i.gnation of th cornbin d pl'oject ar a GNRP Ci n ral Nei ghborhood R n w 1 Plan s S ul'v y and Planning p ELA Early Land Acqui ltlon �A TLANTA, GEORGI A PHON E JA . 2•4463 Ivan All e n , Jr. , Mayo r 0/IAL kt?a/- JMul clot1 ~ lut't/A,t d? ~ (Yofp~_: &vo

b'rable Ivan Allen, Jr.

~or City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Subject:

Bedford Pine UR Redevel opment Project

Dear Mayor Allen: As waa stated in our Conference, this project area, sometimes called Buttermilk Bottoms, contains some of the worst housing in Atlanta. Much of the worst housing was removed in clearing the l and for t he relief sewer and the City Auditorium. The condition of the remainder has been aggravated by the long period of waiting for Federal approval to execute the Project.

In an effort to give some relief, the following actions have been taken:

(1)

The Housing Ccxle Department, worldng with our Project employ-ees, have made and are making inspections of the buildings which appear to be in the wort condition.

(2)

As complaints are received from tenants,or representatives of tenants, the structures in which they 11ve are also inspected.

(3)

The Housing Code Enforcement Department notifiesthe owner of the work which must be performed in order to correct those conditions which ar an immediate threat to health or safety. Our Project employees go to the owners and attempt to persuade them to make the corrections immediate:cy-. This approach is achieving a large measure of su.cceas.

(4)

In those cases where the owner will not correct the conditixms, the structure is placarded and the own r is ask d to vacate t.he building and board it up.

��CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER CITY HALL

Atlanta, Georgia

30303

CHARLES L. DAVIS COMPTROLLER

EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR. DEPUTY COMPTROLLER

September 12, 1968

Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Director Governmental Liaison City Hall Dear Dan: We have reviewed the amended application for the Rockdale Urban Redevelopment Project R-21 which was approved by the Board of Aldermen on September 3, 1968. Basically, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment, however, there are certain factors we feel should be taken into consideration and brought to light at this time. This amendment results in additional cost to the City of Atlanta of $169,369.00. Of this amount $102,960.00 is attributable to increases in administrative costs ($30,360) and interests on temporary loans ($72,600). The major portion of the increases are due solely to the extension of the project execution period by 36 months. It is our understanding that this extension in the project execution period principally results from the reluctance of the FHA to approve the release of construction funds over a short period of time. They apparently have some doubt about the economic feasibility of this type of project and believe that by staging the project some degree of the risk can be removed. However, since this extension results in an increase in Federal Government costs of more than $200,000.00 in addition to the $169,000.00 increase in the City's share, it would seem apparent that a reduction in the period of this extension would benefit all parties involved. Perhaps proper channeling of this cost information might result in a review of the risk supposedly involved and a prompter release of funds.

�September 12, 1968 Page 2 We are in no way objecting to the project amendment and realize that there are certain Local Grant-in-Aids that might also delay completion of the project. However, a shortening of the project by even 12 to 24 months should result in substantial savings while still allowing a reasonable period for completion. Any assistance you can give us in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours,

Charles L. Davis Comptroller CLD:cs

�D

�September 5, 1968

MrQ Dan E. Sweat, J r. Ci ty Hall At lanta , Georgia 30303

Re:

Parcel C-1 Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area Project Georgia R-22 Shopping Center Site

Gentlemen: The Housing Authority of Atlanta is now offering for sale and redevelopment as a shopping center the above described property. We are sending a sales brochure which gives full details of the offering and the dimensions of the property. It contains 10.38 acres, or 452,232 square feet, and has a minimum established price of $330,000. The site is located in, but not dependent on, an area containing 400 new homes and a Public Housing Project of 350 units now under construction. The New Town in Town housing development will be started soon and ·is only a few blocks away . The terms of the offering are very favorable. The Redeveloper is required to make a 5% Proposal Deposit with his proposal. If the proposal is accepted, the Redeveloper has a year to sign the contract, at which time a total earnest money deposit of 20% is required. Then, if he wishes, he has six months in which to close the transaction. Proposals are to be opened in the office of the Housing Authority at 10 :·00 A. M. on February 5, 1969, and must be made on the forms to be furnished upon request by the Housing Authority . Very truly yours,

143.215.248.55

Philip E. Vrooman, ~hief Real Estate Disposition Section PEV:hcn Enclosure

�of :t,......u11,.a City Ball

Ci

Atl

In

(1)

(2) C,)

I uuolrlC'~la

303

�(S}

�August 23, 1968

Mr . Lester Purcell, puty Dir ector At lanta Housing uthority Hurt Bu~lding tlant;a, Georgia

r Mr. Purcell• As a participant in the Cornerstone Proj ect, lcx:ated at 493 Martin Str et, $ • • , Atlant , Georgi a , I sat in on n inform 1 seminar with Daniel S tin whic h he outlined Atlant •s effort to improve physical and sooi 1 conditions in tlanta • s "ghettos,_. • ..Among the item he mention d w s th Atlanta Housi ng Authority • s plans to use mobil home industry techniques to c onstr uc t tempora r y r l ocation hou ing i n · n urban renew l ar a. this Agency 1 pl nning to construct int r im r l oc t i on housing in an urban ren al a~ in · shingt on, D. C., I as'lted Mr . Swat for furth rd tail about the project and he suggested that I cont ct you. In Washington we r att pting -co con truct e<:onomically f sible interim housing module which will me t th cod r~irement of the District of Colu.mbi ~ W h v not y t advertised for bids but w exp t to do o hortly. In view of th experiment 1 n tur of thi und rtaking, w would lik to l rn as mu h po ibl from other oiti ' exp ri nc in dev loping t por ~y reloc tion housing . ther for would ppreci te 1 · if you could end us ny m terial you£ l fr tor l e t this tim concerning how tlanta h s pproach th truction oft _ por ry r location housing in ar nd wh th bUilding cod r uir t wer how th wer m t 8

�-

2 -

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

CC:

Dani ·1 sw t , Coorain tor of Federal Programs Mayor • s Office City Hall Atl.ant, Georgi ~It' .

�MINUTES GRANT REVIEW BOARD August 28, 1968

I

The Grant Review Board met on Wednesday, August 28, 1968, at 10:00 a. m. to consider ari amendment to the Loan and Grant Contract Project Ga. R-21, Roc;kdale Rede~elopment Area.

,

. ·'

Present were: ,,.-' .

Dan Sweat, Chairman George Berry.' Woody Underwood James Henley, Chief, Program Services ,Branch, Atlanta Housing Authority Daryl Chaney, Redevelopment Assistant, Atlanta Housing Authority

j

i '

The amendment is necessary to extend the Project Execution Period and to provide additional funds for Real Estate Purchases, Project Improvements, Legal Services, A dministrative Costs, and Real Estate Acquisition Expenses. It will have no effect on the City's cash r e quirement b ecause of existing non-cash credits. '

.

The amendment will increase the Capital Grant by $513, 284 from $2,700, 257 to $3,213,541 and ;nill increase the Temporary Loan by $513,284 from $3,720,058 to $4,233,342. The Review Board r ecommends approval of this amendment.

e-s pe ctfully,

Chairman DS:fy

�August 28, 1968

Mr . Dan E. Sweat, J r . City Hal l At lant a, Geor gia 30303

SUBJECT:

ADDENDUM DEVELOPMENT COMPETITION ON FEDERAL SURPLUS LAND TO MEET CRITICAL NEEDS GA. R-22 - THOMASVILLE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Dear Sir: This letter constitutes an Addendum to an Invitation to Buy and Develop land in the Thomas v ille Urban Redevelopment Area, Project Georgia R-22, dated June 10, 1968. The Offering is an invitation to bid on a development competition encompassing approximately 96 acres of Federal Surplus Land lying in two parcels designated BB-1 and CC-1. The Offering states that proposals will be opened September 5 , 1968. The opening date is hereby changed to OCTOBER 24 , 1968 at 10:00 A. M. at the offices of the Atlanta Housing Authority , 824 Hurt Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. The Housing Act of 1968 contains provisions which propospective Redevelopers may wish to us e in this competition. It is anticipated that most of the pertinent details concerning this Act, and particularly Sections 235 and 236, will be known within the nex t few weeks. It is anticipated also that the supplemental Appropriations Act, funding the new Sections, will be passed on or be f ore October 1 . We are a nnou n cing the new bid opening date of October 24, 1968, to prov ide an opportuni'ty for Redev elopers to submit proposals based on the possibilities provided in the new Housing Act . During the past s everal weeks a number of prospective Redeveloper s have asked qu e stions, the answers to which we believe shoul d hav e ge neral circulation . These answers a r e to be considere d Adde n d a to the Offer i ng, a n d are as follows :

�2.

(1) The price for the land offered has been questioned. In clarification , we point out that it is our desire that the Redeveloper should have the most complete freedom possible in ~is approach to land use. Some commercial land will be ne cessary to serve the convenience needs of the imme diate neighborhood. We have limited this to six acres. Part of this six acres may be ut ilized for service stations located near the on and off ramps of the Lakewood Extension Freeway, which us e would increase the value of the commercial land great l y . The commercial usage should be subordinate to the s b.opping center to be built at the corner of Mor e laEcl Avenu e a nd McDonough Boulev ard. It is our belief, sl;a:cecl b y FHA, that the land for lowest income hous ing should be included in housing development cos ts at ·t ::_,P. l owest possib l e v alue in order to achi eve th 2 lowest possible rents or sales prices. For tha t n~ason, we have stipulated that this land woul d be accept.ea. b :-{ F.SA at a rnaxim-c.m value o f $4 , 500 p er acre f o;::- SP.ct_i o n 221 d ( 3 ), Section 23 5 and Section 23 6 deve l opr,1ents . The remaining residential land might be acceptab le for mortgages under other programs , incl 0d i n q convention al f i nanc ing , at a some~1at higher val ue . When the fore c:;'.oing C,'.)nsidc!;.-ations are lumped together , we arrive d at an avera7e p ri c e p er acre of $7,650. We b e lieve t hat the Redev ~loper and his adv isers should be abl e to allocat.e va l-.Jcs to individual portions for each portion. We realiz0. u --.at. -this (ave rage price of $7,650 ) approach c.. o t..l·· c sa l e of l and w-ill mean t hat the Redeve lop 1c:~r will P e ed more t han u s ual capital since he will buy r es i d e n t ial J.-'l~:-c:. prior to the purchase and development of tb e corn.rn~rcial land. It is our hope that this disadvantaGe will be outweighed b y the many advantages g ain ed b y h;::i.vin q comp l ete freedom to develop land use s fo:;_· t l~, 0- total arna . (2)

The Off e r i ng req u i n"'s dP. v e lopme nt of 300 dwe lling units a vai l able t o t.hP- lcwcst i ::cor,, e farnili es . The wording "lowest incorn€' far,1ilies is c3 e lib eJ.:- ate , and is in contrast t ,J t >e words l o vJ--r e i-, ~- p l~b li c h ol, s ing ". I t is our belief tha t tLe u se o f Se ction 221 d (3 ) in it s various appli cat ion s , s ~c tio n 2?5 and/ or Se ction 23 6 , toc:rAt h e J.:- witl-:i U S<" o f ~_;:.-:::: l,c;-·t Suppl e me nt Progr am , can provide for many o f ~he s e fami lies . It may be that 11

�3.

Some quantity of low-rent public housing may be found necessary. Each pro spec tive Redev eloper should analyze this phase of the development in order prope r ly to arrive at a solution . It is our hope that no low-rent public h o using will be necessary to me et t his goal of the deve lopment. However, if public hou sing, e i ther Turn-- key or preferably Leased , is co:::sidered n ecessary, it should not exceed 50% of the 30 0 dwe llings . Our analysis of the low- rent p ublic housing situation in Atla~ta, as it concerns high-rise for elderly, leads 1.1s to the conclusion that this type of public hou sing would n ot be acceptable in this development .. We do not, however , rule out high-rise for one and t wo per son familie s financed through other programs. (3)

After the bid opening , all proposals will be delivered to a Jury compos ed of nationally recognized authorities in the field of h o us ing. The Jury is being supplied with the same info rmat ion as that supplied to prospective Redev elopers . This Jury will review all proposals a nd will select the successful proposal to recomme n d to the Hou sing Authority Board of Commissioners for the award.

(4)

It should be apparent from the for e going that the criter ia for judging the proposals will b e based solely o n t he wri tten info rmat ion which h as been supplied both to the prospec t i v e Redeve lopers and to the Jury. The types of q u estions , therefore, that our staff i s prepare d t o answe r relat e to the methods of s ubmitt i ng p ropo sal s r athe r than to the contents o f the proposals . Si ncere l y y our s , A

J

I

.

tY)-r.LJ_~L,,~'--€..J~__d,) M. B. Satte rf i e lc:'0 Exe cut ive Di rec~ MBS :hcn

�EDWIN L. STERNE

M. B. SATTERFIELD

CHAIRMAN

E X ECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY

LESTER H . PERSELLS GEORGE S. CRAFT

ASSOCIATE

EXEC UT .IVE O IRECTOR

VICE CHAIRMAN

CARL TON GARRETT DIRECTOR

J. B. BLAYTON FRANK G. ETHERIDGE JACK F. GLENN

OF FINANCE

GILBERT H. BOGGS

~

/

.' \ .J

X0'

{

DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

,0a'

HOWARD OPENSHAW DIRECTOR

824

Y6'q_:

J

I

./'

HURT BUILDING

OF REDEVELOPMENT

GEORGE R.

ATLANTA, GEORG IA 30303 JACKSON 3-6074

July 24, 1968

Mr. Dan Sweat

Government Liason Director City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Dan: We have received Part I approval from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Amendment 7 to the Loan and Grant Contract in our University Center Urban Renewal Area. This will reduce the Federal Capital Grant $218,548, from $5,420,508 to $5,201,960. We will request that the reduction in the Capital Grant be applied to our Thomasville Urban Renewal Area to partially offset the increase in its Capital Grant for the development of the Federal Surplus Land. Please take this matter before the Grant Review Board for its approval at the earliest possible date. Sincerely yours,

~

Howard Openshaw Director of Redevelopment HO:ab

SANDER

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

·

�C ITY OF .ATLANT.A CITY HALL

August 6, 1968

ATLANTA, GA. 30303

Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404

IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Admin istrative Assistant MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR ., Director of Governmental Liaison

Mr . . Edward H. Baxter Regional Admini s trator Department of Housing and Urban Development 645 Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Dear Mr. Baxter: I have become increasingly concerned with the conditions existing in an area of Atlanta that is designated as the Bedford-Pine Urban Redevelopment Area, Ga R-101. I have recently made several tours of this area and find the structures in an extremely bad an d often dangerous state of repair. In reviewing this with the City's Building Inspector, he has advised me of the practical difficulties that he has in requiring a property owner to make a substantial investment when it is anticipated that the property will soon be acquired as a result of u_rban renewal.

~

The City already has e x pended over $ 1, 600, 000 of its own funds in this area to acquire street and sewer rights of way as well as properties of those persons who, if was felt, were suffering a severe hardship because of the impending urban -renew al activity. It is now obvious that every resident and property owner in thi ~ area is suffering a hardship and the City Comptroller has advised me that, even if funds w ere available, there is considerable risk involv ed in advancing funds for any furth e r acquisiti on s tha t a r e outsid e l e tt e r of consent areas. This is because of the rule that requires us to accept the amount we paid, or the apprais e d va.lue , whicheve r is low er, at the time we eventually resell the prope rty to the project .

.

. I am cognizan t of the fact that the combin ation of the original Butte rmilk Bottoms , R-91 , P r oj e ct with the Bedford - Pine Project, R-101, Project,

�Mr. Baxter Page Two August 6, 1968

after we had received Part I approval on the original project, may have caused some problems and delays that might not otherwise have occurred. I am sure that any such delays were caused by factors occurring at a _ll levels, including our own. Regardless of the reasons for the delays, however, I am sure that you can appreciate the plight of the residents of this area as a result of living with the impending urban renewal activity for this period of time. The situation in this area is now critical. In reviewing the situation with everyone concerned, it seems to be the concensus that immediate approval of the urban renewal project would be the single most effective factor in meeting the problem. For this reason, this letter is to request that the processing of this application be placed on an emergency status. I would --sincerely appreciate any assistance that you personally can provide in obtaining this approval as quickly as possible. /

Needless to say, your continued cooperation and assis·tance in helping Atlanta meet its problems is very much appreciated.

IAJr:fy cc: Mr. John Edmunds

-

�BEDFORD-PINE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA, GA R-101 CHRONICAL OF EVENTS AUGUST 6, 1968

November 27, 1963

R -91 Survey & Planning Applications filed

February 4, 1964

GNRP Application authorized by Board of Aldermen

February 27, 1964

GNRP Application filed

April 3, 1964

R -91 Survey & Planning approved

May 6, 1964

Contract for R -91 planning services executed

June 9, 1964

GNRP Application approved

July 17, 1964

ELA-Auditorium area submitted GNRP terminated by City S & P, R -101, authorized

July 20, 1964

R-101 Survey & Planning Application submitted

November 17, 1965

R-101 Survey & Planning Application approved

F e bruary 2, 1966

R-101 contra ct for planning s e rvices e xe cuted

March 7, 1966

ELA-Hill School site submitted

June 15, 1966

Submitted Part I, R -91

Septembe r 20, 1967

Combine d S & P Applic a tion , R -91 ;-R -101, submitte d

November 30, 1967

Combined Survey & Planning approved

February 5, 1968

Submitte d Part I, R -101

..

Definitions: R-91

Original Butte rmilk Bottoms Project Area d e signation

R - 101

O riginal Be d ford- P ine Project d es i gnation and, l a t er, the designation of t h e combined pr oj ect a rea

GNRP

G eneral N e i ghbo r h o od R enewal P l an

S&P

Surve y and Planning

ELA

Early Land Acquisition

�I

C ITY OF .ATLANT.A CITY HALL

August 6, 1968

ATLANTA, GA. 30303

Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404

IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison

Mr. Edward H. Baxter Regional Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development 645 Peachtree -Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: I have become increasingly concerned with the conditions existing in an area of Atlanta that is designated as the Bedford-Pine Urban Redevelopment Area, Ga R -101. I have recently made several tours of this area and find the structures in an extremely bad and often dangerous state of repair. In reviewing this with the City's Building Inspector, he has advised me of the practical difficulties that he has in requiring a property owner to make a substantial investment when it is anticipated that the property will soon be acquired as a result of u_rban renewal. The City already has expended over $1,600,000 of its own funds in this area to acquire street and sewer rights of way as well as properties of those persons who, if was felt, were suffering a severe hardship because of the impending urban -renewal activity. It is now obvious that every resident and property owner in thiel area is suffering a hardship and the City Comptroller has advised me that, even if funds were available, there is considerable risk involved in advancing funds for any further acquisitions that are outside lett~r of consent areas. This "'is because of the rule that requires us to accept the amount we paid, or the appraised va_lue, whichever is lower, at the time we eventually resell the property to the project .

.

I am cognizant of the fact that the combination of the original Buttermilk Bottoms, R -91, Proj e ct with the Bedford-Pine Project, R-101, Project,

.,,..

�Mr. Baxter Page Two August 6, 1968

after we had received Part I approval on the original project, may have caused some problems and delays that might not otherwise have occurred. I am sure that any such delays were caused by factors occurring at all levels, including our own. Regardless of the reasons for the delays, however, I am sure that you can appreciate the plight of the residents of this area as a result of living with the impending urban renewal activity for this period of time, The situation in this area is now critical. In reviewing the situation with everyone concerned, it seems to be the concensus that immediate approval of the urban renewal project would be the single most effective factor in meeting the problem. For this reason, this letter is to :i;equest that the processing of this application be placed on an emerg_e ncy status. I would sincerely appreciate any assistance that you personally can provide in obtaining this approval as quickly as possible. Needless to say, your continued cooperation and assistance in helping Atlanta meet its problems is · very much appreciated .

IAJr:fy cc: Mr. John Edmunds

...

�BEDFORD-PINE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREA, GA R-101 CHRONICAL OF EVENTS AUGUST 6, 1968

November 27, 1963

R -91 Survey & Planning Applications filed

February 4, 1964

GNRP Application authorized by Board of Aldermen

February 27, 1964

GNRP Application filed

April 3, 1964

R-91 Survey & Planning approved

May 6, 1964

Contract for R - 91 planning services executed

June 9, 1964

GNRP Application approved

July 17, 1964

ELA-Auditorium area submitted GNRP terminated by City S & P, R -101, authorized

July 20, 1964

R-101 Survey & Planning Application submitted

November 17, 1965

R-101 Survey & Planning Application approved

February 2, 1966

R-101 contract for planning services executed

March 7, 1966

ELA-Hill School site submitted

June 15, 1966

Submitted Part I, R -91

September 20, 1967

Combined S & P Application, R -91:-R -101, submitte d

November 30, 1967

Combtned Survey & Planning approved

February 5, 1968

Submitted Part I, R -101

Definitions: R-91

Original Buttermilk Bottoms Project Area designation

R - 101

Origina l B e dford-Pine Proj e ct d es i gn a tion a nd, l at e r , the d e si gnation of the c o m bine d proj ect a r ea

GNRP

G e n e ral Ne ighborhood Rene wal Plan

s

Surve y and . P l anning .

& p

ELA

Early Land Ac quisition

�EDWIN L. STERNE

M. 8 . SATTERFIELD

CHA IR~ AN

EXECUT IVE DIRECTOR ANO S ECRETAR Y

LESTER H. PERSELLS

GEORGE S. CRAFT

ASSOCIATE

VICE CHAIRMAN

EXEC UT .IVE DIA ECTOR

CARL TON GARRETT DI R ECTOR O F

J. B. SLAYTON

FINANCE

G I LBERT H . BOGGS DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

FRANK G. ETHERIDGE

HOWARD OPENSHAW

JACK F. GLENN

DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT

824 HURT BUILDING

ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30303

GEORGE R .

SANDER

TECH NICAL DIRECTOR

JACKSON 3·6074

May 10, 1968

The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jro Mayor of the City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re:

Rawson...washington Street Ur ban Redevelopment Area Project Georgia R~lo

Dear Mayor Allen: The Department of Housing and Urban Development has this date advised by telegram the approval of a $1,600, 894000 grant increase for the 353 acre Rawson~Washington Street Urban Renewal Project in Atlantao This amendment will permit the Atlanta Housing Authority t o proceed with the acquisition of three additional blocks of land east of Whitehall Terrace for a new elementary school, park, and community facility buildingo The Housing Authority submitted the Part I Application for Loan and Grant on this project on February 10, 1967, and received HUD approval on February 26, 1968 (12 months). Ten days later on March 7, 1968, the Authority sub~ mitted the Part II (following a public hearing and approval of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners) and received approval on May 10, 1968 ( 2 months)o The above dates demonstrate the extra~ ordinary time required for Federal review and approval of urban renewal applications, and accounts for the substantial delays in the urban renewal processo The Housing Authority will proceed expeditiously with the acquisition of the land required for the school, park, and conununity facilityo Very truly yours,

Howard Openshaw Director of Redevelopment

�May 15; 1968

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Stan Martin From: Dan Sweat Subject:

Meeting of Gr nt Review Board - Application for Grant to Develop Open Space Land - Daniel Stanton Pal'k and Harper Pa:rk

The Grant. Review Bo rd met Tuesd y, May 14. to review proposed application to the U . S . Department of Houslng and Ui-ban Development for a.pplic tion for grant to develop land undet" Titl Vll of th Housing Act of 1961. This application cov :re Ph se 2 nd Phase 3 development of Daniel Stanton P rk and P hase l d velopment of Harper Park. The sUmate of total proj ct cost is $99. 590 wlth a non ..federal

sha.i,e of $49, 795. The Grant Review Bo rd found this application to be prop rly prepar- d with deqllate loc 1 hare financing substantiated. We, therefoi- 1 i- commend approval of this ppUcation fot eubmis ion.

DS :fy

�...,.._ .

.....o.,......,_,._,~"'-'-~~-----t.u,·c...-->·, -~

'l

SITE DESIGN PLANS The site design plans for Daniel Stanton Park and Harper Park are attached in this code and illustrate proposed development in successive stages. The City of Atlanta clearly desires to develop completely these parks now, but the lack of funds prohibits this accomplishment. · This application concerns only the first phase development of Harper Park and the second and third phases of development of Daniel Stanton Park. The first phase development of Daniel Stanton Park was accomplished without Federal assistance. These stages of developme nt for each of these rarks are more fully described on the following pages.

j

I

.(

I Code OS 141

"";·· , ,.

�--

.,,,,.i

.f

.•

~

~

J

'

.

1

' l

J

DANIEL STANTON PARK MASTER PLAN

If t

I

I.

t

I I

I

'

I

First Phase Development :

'j

I

. rI\i ' ; 1

I1

'

The first phase of development includes t he haulingin of a large quantity of earth to cover the site which at one time was a landfill area . In addition suffi c ient grading was done t o provide vehicular access, useable level areas , and a workable drainage network .

!1

Sp e c ific Items Include :

Ij

!. i

.' I

• l

• i

l

I

a. b. c. d.

I

ll

i I

II.

Storm Drainage System Drive and Parking Softball Diamond Pre-school Chil<lrens Play Area With Spray Pool

Se c ond Phase Development:

j

,t l !l

I:

1 i I

1~

I:' ' l

a. b, c.

I t

d, e.

i

III.

Pedestrian Circulation Multi - use Court Area Sitt in g - Outdoor Meeting Ar ea , Adjacent to Pre - school Play Area Climbing Play Apparatus Grassing

Third Phase Deve1ouw.ent :

I

a, b, c,

d. e.

f.

Bicycle Track Maintenance Storage Building Additional Pedes trian Walks Enclo sing Play Apparatus Area With Curbing and Filling with Sand Compl ete Landscaping to Include Trees and Shrubs Li gh t ing of Parking Lot, Pedestrian Walks, Softb a ll Field and Multi-use Courts

Code OS llfl

'·,

I

�I

I i'

l

I

HARPER PARK MASTER PLAN

t.

I.

First Pha se Devel~pme nt: The first phase of development will include all the site preparation necessary to make the area usable. Because of the rou gh terrain, grading will make up a large portion of the site preparation. Specific Items Include : a. b. c.

d. e. II.

Second Phase Developmen t: a. b. c.

d. e. f. III.

Storm Drainage System Drive and_ Parking Battery of Paved Basketball Courts Fencing Wa lkways

Tennis Courts Childrens Play AreAs Senior Citizens Game Area Picnic Ar eas With Pavilions Additiona l Walks General Park Lighting

Third Phas e Development: a. b. c.

Code OS l Lfl

Recreation Building Maintenance Storage Building Complete Lands c aping

�M.

EDWIN L. STERNE

B . SATTERFIELD

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ANO SECRETARY

CHA IA:MAN

LESTER H . PERSELLS GEORGE S . CRAFT

ASSOCIATE

EXECUT .IVE DIRECTOR

VICE CHAIRMAN

CARL TON GARRETT DIRECTOR

J.

OF FINANCE

GILBERT H. BOGGS

B. SLAYTON

DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW JACK F. GLENN

/

DIRECTOR 824 HURT BUILDING

ATLANTA, GEORG IA 30303 JACKSON

OF REDEVELOPMENT

GEORGE R.

3-6074

July 10, 1968

Mr. Dan Sweat, Jr., Director of Governmental Liaison The Mayor's Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: More new low rent housing for Atlanta! Wednesday, July 17, 1968 at 10 a.m. the Atlanta Housing Authority will be host at ground-breaking ceremonies for 350 new apartments of public housing to be constructed in the Thomasville Urban Renewal Project area. Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. will officially break the ground for this low rent public housing to be built on urban renewal land. This project has been made possible through the efforts of Lake McDonald, Inc. as contractors and Finch, Alexander, Barnes, Rothschild and Paschal as architects. To reach the site, go to the end of Boulevard, turn left at the Federal Penitentiary on McDonough, and turn left again on Henry Thomas Drive. Directional signs from that point will be posted. We hope you will be present at this ceremony which initiates the construction of more housing for the lower income family in Atlanta.

Edwin L. Sterne Chairman ELS :mr

SANDER

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

�DEPARTMENT O F HOUSING AND UR BAN DEVELOPM ENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

Room 645 April 15, l968

REGION Ill

I N REPLY REFER TO:

3CP Mro Wayne Moore, Jr. Coordinator Metropolitan Atl anta Council of Local Goverl'l.ments 900 Glenn Building Atla.~ta, Georgia 30303 Dear lf1 r. Moore: Subject:

Urba.ri. Pla.l'l!ling Assistance Program Funding One Areawide Planni ng Agency per Metropolitan Area

Thi s offi ce is in receipt of notific ation from our Washington offi ce that it is the present departmental policy to support only one areawi de agency per metropolitan areao The re a sons why grants should not be made to t wo agencies , a s is the c ase i n the Atlant a metropolitan area, as set forth by the Washington office are: l . Lack of ne ces sity . There is no distinction in the 701 Program between Organi zations of Public Officials and metropolitan planning c ommissions with regard t o eligible work . Although Section 701(g) and Pla...rming Agency Letter #50 emphasi ze coordination of governmental regulations and services , such studies were eligible before the enactment of 701(g). 2 . Value t o the community of a single areawide agency . Having one areawide agency responsible for developing and coordinating multij urisdict_ional plans, programs and policies on all front s - social, physical, economic, health, administrative, etc. , - is of ultimate benefit to the connnunity. It reduces confusion on the part of electe d officials and the people as to where this responsibility rests, and it reduces divisive competition between agencies . Specific 701- assisted work items c an be subcontracte d t o other agencies, but the legal responsibility should lie with the central agency. 3. Conservat ion of scarce pe ople and dollar s. There is a serious shortage of competent public administrators and high-level professional people t o fill top staff positions on these agencies. !HID should avoid generating unnecessary additional demand for such personnel. Also, grant funds are scarce. Again, we should avoid creating unnecessary additional demand.

�2

~-. Federal policy or coor dination i n m -ci-jurisdictional a.reas o The multiplicity of fe 'eral and state assistance p:rogram.s -· o u:c-oan areas requires that these programs be coordinated at t _e etropolitan or regional level. P--resident Johnson has c alled for such coord · nation, and the Bureau of the Budget has lid out guideli es in c:rcula.r _-8o. It is unlikely that funding t wo a.rea,-Tide agencies in t he sane area thro' gh 701 wou d e : the spL it o '-h s - - c..:.tive ::?ro. cur..cer Gnts .

5. Conflicting plans and programs ., Dual agencies provide no mechanism f or resolving inconsistent plans and programs which li ely will be developed by each agency. A policy of dual grants opens the door for ser~ous disputes in the future over the proper role of each agency. We have been advi sed also not to accept further applicat ions from two areawide agencies i n t he s a..me metropolitan area without clearance of such action with the Washington office . It is our i nterpretation of the information at hand and fro_ discussions with Washington office personnel that .,_he department does not discour age the creation of two areawide agencies, but that, in the future, it will receive and fund applic ations from only one such agency. We understand that one areawide agency may file an application fo_ the work program of the second agency and contract the work back to it. In view of the current relationship existing between etropolitan Atlanta Counc il of Loccl Governments and Atlanta Region 1etropolitan Planning Commission, consideration should be given at an early date as to the future organizational arrangements for submittal of and administration of UFA applicationso We will be pleased to meet with representatives of both agencies as may be required.

7 I ; 'tr'

Si~ erely y~urs, ,1i r

IJ,~

1/ l

!. -

,

u/I',:

l/1

, ,

l ~-1

-v

(I

/~.

l ~ lr,,( ,.1..t. :·, ; , /\ ./(? /

A. Frederick Smith, ' Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination and Services Division

�CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER CITY HALL

Atlanta, Georgia

30303

CHARLES L. DAVIS COMPTROLLER

EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.

October 1, 1968

DEPUTY COMPTROLLER

Mr . Louden C . Hof £man

A~sociate Planner Greenville County Planning Commission 18 Thompson Street Greenville, South C rolina Dear Mr. Hoffman: Your reque t for information regarding th City of Atlanta' Urban Renewal Program was referr d to my office by Mayor Allen, Unfortunately, we were unable to supply the amount of expenditures for urban renewal projects by year ince we are on a project b i •

I have .attached a chedule of project budge~ed cost for our ten urban renewal proj ct and hop that thi will supply you with the information you nod . Yours very truly,

t7t';~ <a_,,,.._ Charles L. Davi Comptroller CLD:c

cc:

Mr . D n Swe t ,

�Urban Renewal Prujects Schedu l cofProjectBudgeLedCost• Septe1:1b c r30,l968 Butler St re et !.of Net $

~::~~:~r:;~v:urvey_ Legel Servi c e 143.215.248.55112:55, 29 December 2017 (EST) 0 :peoses Dispos a l,LeaseRel e ntion Cost ~~:~;:~/r Site Improvemen t

160,38& 501,832 70,005 167,256 205,011 102,067 991,000 180,130

8,267;204 -S367535

Real Estate Pu rchases Sa l e Pr ice of Land

...b~

,., ,.,

,., '-' '-'

-686456 6454671

Nel Projec t Costs

$173, 151 442,177 71,984 192,496 233, 687 59,350

,.,

1,013,500 149 , 935

¼Ji

8,652,367 -2851501 5800661

l5.4

,., o., ,., ..,

~

-10.6 100,0!.

- 335770 12 51~ 582

$225,281 512,331 40,258 ]44,869 12 2,608 28,l76 517,438 77,279

94, 54 9 264,217 64,294 88,269 59 ,202 33,086 662,000 357,900 28 , 586

7 ,162,2 94 ·3078972 4 0 83 322

2,246,209 .,. - 985375 1260834

'·'

.6.6

TI:J

7749~

$

$

... o., ..,

12 . 6

'-'

100.0

~

Federal C11pital Gunt

4 , 303 ,1 14

5, 166,198

7,742,476

CityofAtla,;ita

Non-Cash Cash&Rca1£st a tcTaxCrcdit•

1,863,771 287786 2,151,557 $6454671

=~:;;:r. ~:I~:!~::~i~:. ~=~:~7 ~ ~::t~:~'";143.215.248.55ts

28,87 4.46 3:\,.33

4,7L4,606 58.SOO 4,773, 106

37,67 ~ 36, 14

~ 2,583,100

213,718

2,817,845 -7L 2 900 2,104945 1,372,373

54.8

-1336iA

.:.1.:1

5 258,303

I 00 . 0

4254861

3838,096

100 . 0

7 - 23-59

48.25

-1L..Q..Q£

33 . 33

2,558,046

·"

48,65

1,887,017

~ u 1,8.92 , 034

106, 564 318,640 4l,250 16 2,500 216,000 23,500 443,457 300,000 288,322

4,912,203 -993287 3918916

$706,407 1,446,378 76,400 431 , 782 8!6,708 260,400 836,306 1,900,000 1,135,966

,., ,., ,;

,.o

,., ,., 56,8 -ll.5

~

8,165,277 ,..JOl.3802 5 121 475

75. l · -~ ~

2,963,873 - 194338

44 ,1 1

.........,]_§; 44.47

2,462,223

64 . 15

1,372,373 _1..1Q2 1,375, 87 3

35.76 . 09 35.85

17,819,8S5 - 5233227 12 586 628 7,430,196

-1.8

.......l.ll...,

10870860__!.QQ.,__Q

27778~

$

,., ,.,.,

l0,450 26,185 554 4,108 9,8}3

,oo

'-'

15,807 3,144

-~

~

~

~

286,900

,., "' ..,., "'., lOS,6 -31. 4 74,2

4,014

-~ ~

Tot a l !. of Net $ 1 ,950,442

4,:~~:i~: .

1,6l2,891 2, 013 , 55 9 714, 781 3,J/+3,796 6,262,645 2, 206,l 74

,., ,.,

,.,·' LS

,,.,

62,599,154 -24012635

-~

~

~

28,082,499

·Ll 100.0

3 8 38.096

100.00

5,70 4,176

7,507,743

19,724,584

181,107

57,854,705

2,894,\77

2,963,873 3 99244 3,363, 117

7,430, 196

---.ll'.L.TI.!

4,014 ~ 90 , 554

28,082,499 1708,052 29790S5l

~ 2,949,177

8,053,987

87645256 147,465

22,806

--1.dl!Q

How,1rd Stree t J;of Net

.., ,., .,

7·3-62

2,362,8 27

2,537,046

--1..,_.Ql

Ge org laTec h Amount t ofNet

$

2,894,177

-165688

34 , 426 244,100 --2,..!!22

165,000 91,657

4.3 2. 4

1,877,0!7

100,00

~~:~e1\ts

14. 3

0.5 3.2

.:1..J!

2,700,257

2,425,426

~

20,311 121,064 22,340 54,393 12,500 7,141

-19 1 680

6 -28-60 Allu~ at ion of Projec t Costs:

64,343 23 1 , 108 36,060 82, 218 33,030 75,761 999,435 352,000 6!,l63

2,269,000 - 1660586

2, 537,046

..b]_

100.0t

l

Georgia Stace !.of Net Arnqunt

Univcrsity Ccnt-,r t ofNet

A.-nount

2,425,426

4,7L4,606

L,863,771 ProJcctloco:ne

Rawson -Wa,hington Amount !. of Net

633,485

616,302

ill.....:!.ll

....!.Q__,_Q_QQ

1L2~

6,547 2,128,204

~ $281! 720

.,

32 . U 33,9

�ATLANTA, GEORGIA

OF THE CITY OF 824

HURT BUILDING•

ATLANTA 3,

GA .

•

JACKSON

3-807•

November 1, 1968

Mr . Dan E. Swea t , J r . City Hal l At l anta, Georgia 30303

~

if)

Q -

u1 w.l

_(

Gentlemen:

08 PAD-C~L@

8d

I

I-'

(J ([l

_=-- 7_

0a,o 0 Ocs -o <-9

Re:

Parcel 24 West End Urban Redevelopment Area Project Georgia R-90

We h ave issued an invitation for proposals to purchase this small tract of Commercial land located on the east side of Lee Street 109 feet nor t h of Gordon Street in the West End Urban Redevelopmen t Area . It is z o ne d C-2 and has a minimum estab lished price of $8,500.00 . Proposals are to be opened in the office of the Housing Authority on December 18 , 196 8, at 10:00 A. M. If an acceptable proposal is not received , the Authorit y will continue to receive proposals and to open them as received for a period of twelve months or u n til the trac t is sold. Proposals must be made on our forms which we will gladly send upon request. Very truly yours,

~ 6

'C//c::-o-o~,1-1-,

tt

v

\

,·

Philip E. Vrooman, Chief Real Estate Disposition Branch PEV : hcn

�,RtC .

,tb·.· ......,.

/---/

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,..,-

t.

WASHINGTON, D . C. 20410

,,J.

i -

\ ~\

0CT14196B?t,.. -~ ••

I

.•-(/{.£~/

<"

--r-.--.---,4-:::. .-f OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RENEWAL AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE

CIRCULAR

9-18-68 TO:

Local Authorities Regional Administrators Assistant Regional Administrators for Housing Assistance

FROM:

Don Hummel

SUBJECT:

Families With Children to be Located in Low-Rise Buildings

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Section 15(11)) specifies that "except in the case of housing predominantly for the elderly, • • • , the Secretary shall not approve high-rise elevator projects for families with children unless he makes a detennination that there is no practical alternative." This prohibition applies to projects placed under Annual Contributions Contract on or after August 1, 1968. It does not apply to a project in this category if the Regional Administrator makes a finding that, prior to August 1, 1968, development of the project had reached a stage wh:l-ch would make it impractical to require the Local Authority to change its housing program. Pending experience with the above-cited provision of the statute, the following policies are established to assure compliance with the legislation: 1.

Dwellings for families with children shall be provided in structures which do not exceed three stories in height.

2.

Projects proposed for families with children shall be designed not to exceed a net dwelling density of 45 per acre nor a net building coverage in excess of 35 percent.

The Regional Administrator shall make the required finding as to whether there is 11 no pra ctical alternative" under Section 15(11) at the earliest stage. Such .a finding may be made under the following circumstances: (Cont'd)

I

I

r- -_/ /- ,

�2 .. ...

a.

Compliance _with the limitation at the selected site would result in room costs exceeding the statutory limits, and there are no other acceptable sites available, or

b.

Current land value of the site proposed and the going construction cost produce an average development cost per famiJ.y dwelling which is unacceptably high in comparison with current costs of sale or rental housing for family dwellings of the same size and character in other residential neighborhoods within the local area, and other sites cannot be obtained, or

c.

The housing is being leased by the Local Authority for family occupancy on a short-term basis, and there is no

housing available which satisfies the policies established above for family dwellings. A finding of "no practical alternative" on the basis of any other circumstances requires the approval of the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance.

In those instances where the Regional Administrator makes a finding pursuant to the provisions of this Circular, a statement setting forth the basis for such finding shall accompany the Annual Contributions Contract list submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance.

=)

~~r-e"" '\-:-ar--..y----------~

...J 231841-P

HUD-Wash., D. C.

�I/JW RENT PUBLIC HOUSING APPLICATIONS ON HA.ND

Efficiency

189 )

1 Bedroom

267 )

2

II

433

3

n

327

4

"

191

5

II

57

TOTAL

AS OF ll/4/68

265 Elderly

1,464

All applications apparently eligible on basis of income unverified.

�,.

DISTRIBUTION OF ONE PERSON FAMILIES TOTAL 8,878 FAMILIES as of 6/30/68

Techwood Clark Howell Palmer

APrS

BR

391

7ll

52

216 199*

30+ %

100

50

248 200

15.5%

( 6

49*

76 199*

13.9%

( 4. % ( 9.9

82

10 %

56 55-*

14. 7%

56

172 154-x108

24

92

2.8%

223 )

365

Harris Homes John O. Chiles

95) 232 )

327

Capitol Homes

238

Grady Homes Graves II II Eagan

15.3 )

4~-

108

192) 91 :

65

345

3.9%

pa.....rver Community

71

194 .

3 %

Perry Homes

49

148

2.1%

Bowen

63

no

2.7%

20

297

1 %

Leased

II

(12.8%

180} 231 }

142 )

II"

1

API'S

300)

University John Hope

Herndon

EFF.

2,345

599

2,892

Designed for elderly only.

100

%

( 1.1 .

( 9.9

( 9.5%

(6.5% · (8.2

�TWO l1E:HBER FAHILIES HAVING NO HI NORS, NOT ELDERLY

NOR DISABIED

6-1 ) 6-9 )

Techwood. Clark Hm·r ell

30 10

6-2) 6-10)

University John Hope

17 23

6-3

Capitol

15

6-4

Grady

13

6-5 Rl

Eagan

21

6-5 R2

Herndon

6-6

Carver

17

6-7

Harris

2

6-8

Perry

10

6-12

Ba.rnn

7

6- 18

Leased

21

5

202

(710 units elderly not incl.)

out of 8,811 Units

�BEDFORD-PINE PROJECT AREA R-101

Re:

Individuals and Families of two (2) Composition

In the Bedford-Pine Project Area we are showing by family sum,--nary:

148 Indi v:i.duals

HANDICAPPED

Over 62

Apparently eligible for Pub. Hsg.

122

35

3

Apparently ineligible for Pub. Hsg.

26

6

0

_______

_____ ___

.....,._ Families of two __,_ (2) Compositi ons

-

223

- Apparently Eligible for P.H.

.

Eligible

Combination of Co~position:

·Did not Ineligible give Income

( 178 )

126

48

Two (2) Females

( 32 )

25

7

Two (2) Hales

( 13)

5

5

3

60

7

Male

&

Female

4

.- TOTAL

Of above:

(223 )

Case s where both over 62

Handicappe~ Cases NOTE:

156

16 9

Apparently eligibl e for Public Housing category is ba sed on families 1 s t aterr.ent of incor.:e un verified.

�On\? HOUrl

TiZ V '-~'l 1·-

""RIil -i·- t1r~;. ilrt'· . _. ugi t f .f.,ill1I j k"J_ ,tpn !JUJ ~

.ll)

355 Boulevard, N. E.

• Ationto, Georgia 30312

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _...:,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,_ _ _ _ _ _ __

c1•r 1~11s.

iEG. U. S, MT.OFF.

THE :.1OST

rn

D.RY CL-EAHING

HERBJRT 0. W ALDRI?

Octobe~ 28, 1968

Mr. Lester

li. Par3ells Atlanta Housing -~thority Hurt Building · Atlg_nta, Georgia

Dear llr. Persells, · Your information to our group last Thursday vi:is _a3:rpreciated. Any aid in keeping the line of" information o_pen to tho neighborhood, rather than getting it out of the pa:9ers, v1ill be o-f great service to ell of us. The sugge3tion of 1:r. Cook and others to ch?n;:;e tha pl2.11S in the public housi::ig along North Avenue s.nc. aroU!ld the park in the Bedford-Pine ?l'in is ala_'l'"I11i~. .A.ft er ya ·l l's of planning by your group · and by the architects, the ma.'1euver to make the aNa U!lbala.TJ.ccd doe.s not seem realiastic. To have all, or a 5 reat portion, of older people or only couples viould no more fill the needs of the neighborhood than to not con.sider them at all. Therefore, we plea d th at the ori ginal :pla.'ls be kept as discus sed this yec?.l', and 2-ll efforts to maka last r:u.n.ut e major cb.211sas be rejected. We were als o disturbed e.t the :p l9.n to enlarge the araa in th;; East ·Avenue, }!acI~nzie Drive ar ea by dis:;,lo.cing so:rae 88 f amilies. Tl1is . fype move should be g iven far more co!lsideration than the fe v1 da.y.s you say will be g i-van before t he r c:: cofilz,enc1at i on is !;1c:i.de . Remenb 9r, we h·::. d not bee!l. ad.vised. ab:Jut tb.i.s bef-:i re ~hurs c1:;;y, and you ind icated a decision had to be ma1e this week . We again recor:T'.snd tha t the orig ina l bou.nd.ry end plan be

adhered to and tha t no expamion be co~s idered until the original area is recon3tru.ctad and fini3hed. Again, better c-:>mmunic ation in t;J.e :planning st 20 e, rather the.n near the execution stago, should eli:nin3.te m:1D.7 of the doubts and fe ars that have existed in p a st ye ars . Sincerely,

�ATLA..l"IJTA HOUSING -AUTHORITY OF T~CITY OF ATLANTA DATA ON BEDROOMS I

No. of Name of No. of No. of Units Project GA. Project Rooms Howell, Clark 6-1 630 2675 Hope, John 606 2282 6-2 815 · Capitol 6-3 3578 Grady 616 2610 6-4 Eagan, John J. 6-5Rl 548 2338 Herndon, Alonzo 6-5R2 2278 520 Carver 6-6 4687 990 Harris, Joel C. 510 6-7 2477 Perry 6-8 1000 4844 Techwood 6-9 604 2371 6-10 University 2640 675 .6-11 Graves, Antoine 210 709 Bowen 6-12 650 3245 6-13 Chiles, John O. 250 854 Palmer 6-14 250 854 Perry Ext. 6-15 140 848 6-16 HcDaniel-Glenn 650 2834 Thomasville Urban 6-17 350 Renewal (334 Conv.) (16 Elderly) 6-20 Hollywood Road 202 6-28 Bankhead Highway 500 6-21 Gilbert Road 220 Prison Creek 6-29 175 East Lake 800 6-30 (Garden (650) (Elderly Hi-Rise) (1502 -lHETOTAL 11,911 6-18 Leased Housing ll026 GRAND TOTAL 12,937 At the recorranendation of HAA, the following percentages of apt. sizes are furnished Turnkey Developers and Architects for guidance in planning

Allor part (listed below) specifical~ designed for

the elderly: Antoine Graves - All Bowen - 48 - 1 BR Chiles - All Palmer - All McDaniel-Glenn 152 1 BR 23 - Eff. Thomasville 16 - 1 BR

No. of Bedrooms 2 Eff. 1 216 228 52 200 277 50 82 471 108 172 294 56 108 320 56 24 92 339 194 486 76 226 148 h62 397 157 100 248 327 154-il1 55* llOll- 240 49* 199-lE- 1 49* . 199* 1 23*

4

194 158 JOO

116 78

12

200 1 1 78 213 80

70

30

46 10 80

88 88 60 170 84 80 64 59 87 223

10 150 20 22 204

60 8 6 54

60 3209 4399 2485 856 297 654 .51 12 3506 5053 2536 868

228 12 240

326* 66 40* 120 16 60 28 24 76

90 728 0 728

~

3 134 79 154 94 64

11.7

65

50

6 ~

50

~

16 12

30

ll.7 34.3 31.4 9.9

6 ..

Status Com. 11/5/1~40 Com. 9/16/1940 Cmµ. 4/7/1942 Com. 8/6/1942 Com. 4/1/1941 Com. 10/22/1941 Com. 2/17/1953 Com. 10/1/1957 Com. 4/12/1955 Com. 8/15/1936 Com. b./17/1937 ·· Com. 11/2/1965 Com. J/10/1964 Com. 10/15/1965 Com. 6/3/1966 Com. 1968 Com. 1968 Under Construction Under construction . Under Construction Contract signed 9/68 HUD,Wash.D.C • Prelim.Planning phase

6

-

6

1.0

Note: New HAA regulations require at least

6~ of apartments in high-rise be efficiency apartments

�i DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANO URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

Room 645 October 18, 1968

REGION Ill

Housing Assistance Office

,•

' IN REPLY REFER TO:

3RD Mr. M. B. Satterfield, Executive TheHousing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia 824 Hurt Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Satterfield: This acknowledges your letter of October 16, 1968, enclosing a copy of Mr. Rodney Cook's letter to you of October 11, 1968, for our observations, since many of the points raised involve matters which eventually require approval of this Office. We are always encouraged when a man of Mr. Cook's stature gives as much time and thought to a program as is reflected in his letter. We wish to point out, however, several complications in his proposal that arise based on our local and national e xp erience with the Low-Rent Housing Program. The first matter that concerns us greatly is the fact that construction costs are at least $2,000 more per unit on high-rise than on low-rise structures. Further, if we constructed all our larger units in a project without an intermix of smaller units, we would e xpe rience an e x ceptionally high aver~ge cost per unit. Since the smaller units in a high-rise would cost us a t least $2,000 per unit more than normall y experienced, we could not even average two projects t(?gether to get an acceptable unit cost. In other words, this policy will result in an extra unacceptable construction cost to the Government.

Of grave additional concern to us is the fact that concentrating the large families with their high density of children in projec~s such as proposed will greatly increase maintenance costs as well as management problems. We hav e found this true even when we concentrate the larger units in one section of a project. In fact, in project planning, we endeavor to intermix larger and smaller units to avoid this larger unit concentration. Wifh this type conc~ntration, increas ed juvenile crime and delinquency, increased frequency of juveni le gangs, increased peril to the personal safety of tenants, an increase in social problems an d difficulty in h a ndling them all become factors with which Management has to cope.

The stabilizing effect of older families is lost under any system which involves up-rooting and moving them to high-rise proj ec ts. Many older ~amilie8 also do not like high-rise living and wou ld only move into the environment under protest.

�2

Young families moving into the high-rise in turn would be requir e d to move when they began to have children. The practice of concentrating t wo-person or less families in one group and larger families in another group creates an unnatural type conununity.

In the past, . we have altered unit sizes in existing projects only on a case basis where the market had changed. In some instances, we created more units by the conversion of larger units and in other instances we created fewer units by conversion of smaller units to make larger units. In most instances, this has been a costly process, justified only because a vacancy problem over a long period of time had developed. Further, because of the physical layout of existing units, the amount of conversion to larger or smaller size units that can be made is usually quite limited. ~t must also be realized that when you reduce the number of units in a proj e ct, you also reduce the rental income, while at the same time, as indicated above, you increase the maintenance cost. We could not agree to any such plan in Atlanta merely to relocate families in high-rise structures. There a-re instances throughout the Country now where, because of the high density of children and large families involved, consideration has been given to abandoning the projects to a different design concept. -The present polic y in public housing programming f av ors disbursing the units into smaller clusters and avoiding the large pro ject d e v e lopments. L a nd a n d construction costs in a l a rge city usu a lly prohibit the d e v e lopme nt of single family units under our program The plan outlined by Mr. Cook reflects serious and r e sponsible thinting and concern on his part; howe v er, it do e s not take into consideration some of the problems known to us th a t would make it una cc e pt ab le to this Ad min i s trati on.

_;~~ut .

Sincdere~/,; y

- /, , / t / / · [.I (I./// / ;;.-~ -: > ..

A. R. ½-IANSON. ,

Assist an t Reg i o n a l Adm inis tr a tor I for Ho u sin g Ass i st a nce

�EDWIN L. STERNE

M. B. SATTERFIELD

CHAUIMAH

CX£CUTIVE DIRECTOR AND S ECRETARY

LESTER H . PERSELLS GEORGE S. CRAFT

ASSOCIATE

&:XECUTIVE DIRECTOR

VICE CHAI .. MAN

CARL TON GARRETT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

GILBERT H. BOGGS

J. B. BLAYTON

DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW DIRECTOR OF REDEV£LOPMENT

JACK F. GLENN 824 HURT IIUILDING

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

GEORGE R.

SANDER

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

JACKSON 3· 6074

November 15, 1968

Mr. Rodney M. Cook 34 - 10th St. N. E. Atlanta, Georgia . 30309 .Dear Rodney: Your letter of October 11 concerning low-rent public housing and the approaches which you feel the Housing Authority should take have led to a restudy of the current situation and the future course of action with respect to the development of high and low-density housing. The overall objective for housing in Atlanta is contained in the Community Improvement Program study as adopted by the Board of Aldermen. As restated by you, it is: "Place greater and intensified emphasis on creating higher density (high-rise} housing and preserving and promoting additional single family dvrellings; garden type apartments must be deemphasized in the future development and redevelopment of Atlanta. 11 Our studies indicate, and we believe this to be implicit in the CIP Study, that housing for higher income families should be largely in high-rise and single family structures, and that housing for low-income families should be largely in garden type apartments and high-rise for the elderly structures. Though we know of no study which indicates the extent of need and the degree of acceptability of high-rise structures by elderly low-income families in Atlanta, our experience, on the whole, has been favorable. The Housing Authority is, therefore, placing very considerable emphasis on this type of housing even though the Federal program is de-emphasizing elderly housing at the present. We referred your letter to the Regional Housing Assistance Office with a request for their comments. We are attaching a copy of their l etter and a .,, · copy of HUD Circular of 9/18/68 which also relates to these matters. Mr. Hanson I s letter clearly states the position of the ·Federal Agericy with respect to the low- income housing program.

�-2Weha.ve also reviewed much of the literature concerning the development of planned communities and neighborhoods. In addition to this, we have discussed such developments with developers and planners of national and international stature. The general consensus is that a desirable neighborhood is one that contains a· reasonable cross-section of family sizes and income groups. Our observation is that in Atlanta most of the privately developed housing consists of one and two bedroom .units, except for higher-income single family residences. There is apparently a very great need for a large number of 3, 4 & 5 bedroom units for lower income families. We have attached a listing of the low-rent public housing projects in Atlanta, giving data on apartmem, by bedroom size. Please note that the older projects included no four or five bedroom apartments, and were heavily weighted toward efficiency and one bedroom units. The more recent developments have been increasingly weighted toward apartments with a larger number of bedrooms. · Your letter requested certain statistical information with respect to one and two person families. As of June 30, 1968, we were serving 2,345 one person families. Of these, 1,926 are elderly (62 years and over}, and the remainder consist of handicapped persons, widows or widowers whose spouses have deceased during their tenancy, and a very few single persons displaced by Urban Renewal or other governmental activities. In low-rent public housing are also 1,972 two person families, of which 202 are families having no minors and who are neither elderly nor disabled. We have included a listing showing the projects in which these two person families live. Because of the great demand for admission to low-rent public housing, which stays fully occupied with an average waiting list of approximately 1,500 applications, it is clear that the family sizes accommodated in low-rent housing is controlled by the size apartments which have been built, and, as mentioned above, the early program was heavily weighted toward the smaller size apartments.

In the light of the foregoing, it would appear that the policies being followed by the Housing Authority in the construction of new low-rent public housing is the proper course of action, and, in the light of the current laws and regulations, achieves to the maximum degree possible the objectives which you advocate. With respect to the Bedford-Pine Project, GA. R-101, and the public hous:Lng presently planned for that project, we believe that fill consideration has been given to the objectives outlined in your letter and to the objectives of the project as agreed in meetings with the project residents. We enclose an

�-3-

analysis of one and two person families now living in the Bedford Pine Project area. Our past experience indicates that most of the 148 individuals will insist on being self-relocated for a variety of reasons such as contemplated marriage, illegal occupations, alcoholism. Most of the elderly and handicapped will probably move into public housing. Of the 223 two person families, most will be satisfactorily relocated by our staff, and it is our hope that most of those eligible for public housing will take advantage of their opportunity. It would appear that the public housing for the elderly planned for this area will acconunodate all those who are likely to move in, and will leave a small surplus. The Project Advisory Committee, with whom this matter has been discussed, feels strongly that the very limited land area available for residential reuse should be devoted to housing which will serve the people living in the area. The 353 apartments, of which 149 will be for elderzy, is designed to accomplish this. We are attaching a letter from the Project Advisory Committee stating their feelings in this matter. We reconunend and urge that these 353 apartments be constructed in the apartment sizes presently planned. · The constructive approach which you are taking to this matter is greatly appreciated, and we appreciate also the thoughtful and constructive policies which you and the Policy Committee present for the guidance of the Urban Renewal program. Sincerely yaurs, ,/J

~

r.

lLd' _

// __.,,,,-

,/ v ~ ·

MBS/IBP:sd CC:

AHA Board Members UR Policy Committee Hembers

_ /,

-

L.

•"

1

\.;L.J.;.:cz:z,-,~ /4-e-f.--#U

1;·

M. B. Satterfield Executive Director ~ Enclosures

/

·

�ihe G~u:i"\t!lk:11::ni

Life Insurance Company of America LIFE INSURANCE AND ANN/.!ITIES -

HEALTH INSURANCE -PENSION PLANS -

RODNEY M. COOK, C.L.U.

GROUP INSURANCE

THE MATTINGLY AGENCY

1967 Qualifying Member of Mi llion Doi/or Round Table

34 Tenth Street, N.E. • Atlonto • Georgia 30309 Phone, 892,1561

October 11, 1968

Mr. M. B. Satterfield Executive Director Atlanta Housing Authority 824 Hurt Building Atlantaj Gebrgia 30303 Dear Satt:

0

I want to make it perfectly clear what my position was at the r _e cent Urban Renewal Policy Committee meeting concerning public housing and what course of action I feel the Authority · should take as soon . as possible. First, let ·me set forth the objective I feel we must set for ourselves in Atlanta. Simply stated, we should: Place g:reater and intensified emphasis on creating higher density (high - rise) housing and preserving and promoting additional single · family dwellings; garden type · apartments must be de-eraphasized in the future development and redevelopment of Atlanta. In pursing this objective, the approach must be to: . 1.

Plan and construct additional high rise public housing units;

2.

Move eligible families from low rise (garden type) public housing units into new high rise public housing units.

3.

Eliminate efficiency and one bedroom units in low rise (garden type) public housing units, and consolidate efficiency and one bedroom units with abutting units to create larger dwelling units ~

ln pursuing this objective and the above approach, it would be incumbe nt upon the AHA to: 1.

Surv ey the actual number of one person families by age bracket, ma rital status, physically handicapped, with and without child, etc., who

A MUT UAL COMPANY-ESTA BLISHED 1860 • HOME OFFICE, 20 1 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NEW YOR K 10003

- .. ~~-- --- ... --~ ---

--·-------- -- - -

�_.:- ·.1-\\JL

J. , ·, \.)

Mr. M. B. Satterfield October 11, 1968

live now in low rise (garden type) public housing units by project for the purpose of developing a market for additional high rise public h6using units. · 2.

Study the feasibility of eliminating efficiency and one bedroom units in low rise (garden type) public housing units through ·their · consolidation with abutting units for purposes of creating larger dwelling units, and ·

3.

Study the feasibility of discbntinuing altogether the construction of: (a) (b)

low rise public housing projects, and if it is determined that the construction of low rise public housing projects must continue · to be built, then the · feasibility of eliminating efficiency and one bedroom units in future low rise public housing projects should be studied.

Based on studies we have made, however, I am convinced that in order to maintain our fin e single family residental areas across the city, we must go high rise in those areas that are suitable for apartments ind it does not make sense to me to do just the opposite in our urban renewal and public housing areas. Let me repeat, once more, that I am not talking about putting large families in high rise structures but I am especially concerned · when I find that 49% of our public housing units are occupied by one and two person families and only 8% 6f our units are in high rise buildings. · Should you have any questions concerning this, please let me know. . Sinc e r e ly yours,

Rodney M. Cook R.V,:C: cl CC:

Members of the Board of AHA

�EDWIN L . STERNE

M . 8 , SATTERFIELD

CHAIRMAN

E X ECUT I VE DIREC T O R AND S ECRETAR Y

LESTER H. PERSELLS

GEORGE S . CRAFT

ASSOCIATE

E XE C U T } VE DIA EC TOR

VICE CHAIRMAN

CARL TON GARRETT D IRECTOR OF FINAN CE

J, 8. SLAYTON

GILBERT H. BOGGS DIRECTOR

OF' HOUS ING

FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW

JACK F . GLENN

DIRECTOR 824 HURT B U ILD IN G

GEORGE R .

A T LANTA, GEORGIA 30303 JACKSON

OF REDEVELOPMENT

SANDER

T ECHN IC AL DIRECTOR

3-6074

November 8, 1968

Mr. Dan Sweat The Mayor's Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia Dear Mr. Sweat: You are invited to attend the ground-breaking ceremonies for the 220-units of low r ent housing to be constructed under the turnkey method to be held on the Gilbert Road site Tuesday, November 19, 1968 at 10:00 a.m. The site is located in southeast Atlanta at the intersection of Gilbert Road and Flynn Road, as indicated on the attached map. Mayor Ivan Al len, Jr . will officially break the ground f or this $4-million development. This project has been made possible through the very fine effor ts of Claridge Towers Company as developers and The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company as contractors. We hope you will be present at this brief ceremony which marks another stride forward in Atlanta ' s low rent housing program. Sincerely, ~

Vy,:_,'-\

--? -1--- •

Edwin L. Sterne Chairman ELS: ab Enclosure

~

�I'

>-

r- f-

~I

-

~:

�"f'p--,.c ,.,+.;,

n,,-:+ r.:i d For Fa,j_rness

i~AHRO, PLlASi

ROTBCT US FROM TEE ATLA .!TA HOUSING AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!

AHA---- 11 Protects 11 its tenants and encourages beautification of its ,.,rojects by tearing up tenants I gardens and bullying project residents. AHA-------Is rude and imploite when a call is received from any1..ne with a Negro voice. ·

AHA-----Invades the privacy of its tenants 1 homes by inspecting apart;nents without notice -- often when no-one is home .

AEA

Does not furnish adequate playground facilities, and fines tenants whose children are caught playing on the grass. AH11---Exercises absolute power over its tenants, who must surrender all their rights once they enter public housing. Intimidation is an important part of AHA policy. YOU THE .il:J.vlBER OF HAiJRO CAN HELP US! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1. Iv1ake it clear that tenant participation .,1eans that tenants should be allowed to take part in the operation of local housing authorities. 2. Allow the tenant a prior fair hc:aring o:ti. any sanctions imposed by the authority. 3. Establish a Tenant 1 s hearing Panel to hear all complaints of the tenants and of the Authority. 4. Establish authority-wide rules governi11g evictions, punishments, a·1d fines. It is inco11ceivable that Public Housing should have come to be known as the "enemy of the por,r", yet this has happened in Atlanta. We believe HAHRO is truly concerned with the needs and hope of public housing tenant s . tJe urge you, therefore, to give us our rights. Remove the power of intimidation from the hands of pur local tormentors by creating a tenant hearing panel, empowered to review all decisions of local housing managers and to hear allThnants complaints. Free us from the ~rbitrary acts of local housing managers. LET US HELP OURSELVES!! !!!!!!!! �bee: Mr . Dan Sweat, Jr. Economic .pport • n1 y At anta , 101 .\fa r iect a Stre et Bl dg . '" Arlan ca, Ge org ia 30 30 3 o T e leph one 688 -1012 T . .\I. Parham Ex ecu ci,.· e Admin i st rat o r Dece mbe r 9, 19 68 Mr . F . A . St auffacher, Director East Point Housing Authority 1 669 Cleve l and Ave nue East Point, Georgia Dear Mr . Stau f facher: Thank you fo r att end ing t h e meetin g of the Citizens Cent ra l Advisory Council of EOA on Novembe r 19, 19.68 . The m2eting was ver y h e lpful to us and c reatin g i mproved u nders t a nding of som2 of th e po l icies of th e Housing Authoritie s . At th at meeting , r eprese nt a tives of th e Regional Of fice o f HUD, Housing Assistanc e Se ction, r e ad to th e gr oup from a "circular" dated 3/22 / 68 which was transimtt e d to l oca l Housing Aut h or ities from Washington HUD ( Mr . Don Humme l) in re gar d to "so cia l goa ls for pub lic ho·.1sing ." Mr . Hummel indicated tha t as a matter of national policy, urgent and m~jor social obj ectives incl uded : Mor e att e ntio~ to resi de nt ' s dignity, privacy , and p ersona l safety. Specia l at tention should be g iven to the elimination of unne c essary rules and regula tions . Leade rship t o ~chieve b etter and more co ordin ~te d soc ia l s erv ice s f,r p roject te n ants. Increas e d trainin g and employmen t of tn e ants in proj e ct ma nagemen t. Th e d eve lopme n t of e qui t ab l e s ystems for h and ling gr i evances. Great l y expanded participat ion of t ena nts in project mana g eme nt affa irs and prog r ams d es i gned to str engthen the self-su ff icie n cy o f t ena nts. �~rr. F . A. Stauffacher Page t wo December 9 , 1968 Mr. Humme l's directive indicat e d t hat nat ional and r e gional offi c e s of HUD s hould give attention to thes e m3.tter s, but st a ted that "i t i s t he l o:::.al Housing Authoriti e s who ~oJill make th e goa ls a realit y . It i s t hey who must examine their own oper ati ons an d mak2 t he cha nges ca ll e d for by thei r finding3 , 11 He reconrnended i mmediate revi ew of the follo wing : The raising of incom2 limits where the y have subs t antially fallen be h i ng change s i n the comnunity . T~e l ibera l izing of t he definition of i ncom2 wi ih the respect to t he income of minors . The adjusting of rent a l policies and require men t s for the e xamination of t enants to minimize the di f ference betwee n pub l ic h ous ing and norma l r ea l es t ate practi~es . The us e of the statutory authority to c ont inu e in occ upa ncy an over-income fa mi l y when it i s unab le to find good h ousing in a suitable ne i ghborhood . The liberali z ing of r egulations l imiting the number of employees who J1ay l ive i n a pr o j ect. The adoption of a simp l e and equitab l e l ~ase . The si mp lification of rules and r egulations . The provision o f adequate me a~u res for s afe ty a nd security of tena nts . The adop tion of proc e dures where t e na nts, either individ ua ll y or in a group, may be given a hearing on questions relating to Auth or ity pol icies and practices, either in general, or in relation t o an individua l or family. The up grading of levels of m3.intenance and t he appearance of buildings and grounds with the maximum tenant participation and, where poss i.b le, tenant employme nt. · . �Mr. F. A. Stauf f a cher Page t hree December 9, 1968 Among othe r th i ngs Mr . Hum:ne l a l s o s uggested t hat l oca l Hous i ng Author ities : Deve l op a two way c o:nmunicati on with tenants concerning basic po l icy; afford the t enan ts full opportunity to organ ize , i nclud i ng t he provision of m:eting ro oms a nd a ccess to te nant l i s ts and bul l e tin boards: Give r e s idents t he opportunity to participa t e i n the de t ermination of rnanagem2nt pol icies and pract i ces, subject to gener a l principles of HA.A, s uch a s ren t al and occu pancy p o l i c ies ; rules and regu l at i ons; ch a r ges for breakage and dama ge ; eviction p ol icies, e t c . The Centr a l Citizens Advisory Co:nmit tee wou ld like to ask wha t a c tion the Atlanta Housi ng Authority ha s taken or con temp l ates t aking , to c omply wit:h t he recommenda t i ons of rlr . Hum:ne l . We a re e s pecia lly intere s t ed i n t .h e p oin t s l isted above an.ct wou l d appr e c iate a r ep l y, i f possible , by December 17 , 1968 , the da t e of our nex t me et ing . · Si~c;erely yours, I 'i '· / I ~ / ,,,..- - • ..~ - ~ :... - ·.• • - I , / ," . ,- \ · :___.. Erwi n-Stevens, Cha irman - - -· · , -.__ ~-, Centra l Citizens Advi sory Co:nmit t ee ES / gnd c c: Mr . Edwar d Sterne, Cha i rman Ware , Sterne & Griff i n 636 Trust Company of Georg ia Bu i l ding Atlanta, Georgia Mr . Frank Eth r idge Eth ridge and Company Suite 100 ~100 M3.ple Dr ive, N. E. At l anta, Ge org ia Mr. Ge orge F . Craft , Vice Chairma n Cha i rma::i of che Boa rd of Trust Co:npa ny of Ge org ia Trus t Co~~any of Ge orgia Bui l ding Atlanta , Georgia Mr. J. B. Blayton Mutual Federal Savings and Loan 205 Aut urn Avenue Atla~ta, Georgia Mr. J ack F . Gl enn Cha irma r.1 Citizens 35 Broa d At lanta, of the Bo:1rd 'of and Sou t hern Na tional Bank Stree t, N. W. Ge org ia �bee: Mr . Dan Sweat , Jr . Economi pport nity Atlanta, 101 i\! a ri etta Srr ee r Bl dg . " Acl a nt a, Georgia 30303 • Telephone 6 88 -1012 T. ;\f P ar~1am Ex ecu ti\·e A dmi ni st racor December 9, 19 68 ~x. L. F . Ca rs on College Park Ho~sing Authority 3 713 Coll ege Street Co llege ~ark, Georgia Dear Mr-. Carson : At the June 19, 19 68 mee ting of the Citizens Central Adv isory Council ( CCAC) o f Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc. ( EOA) representative s from the Atlanta and East Point Housing Author ities he l ped with discussions of some of the probl ems identified. At that mee ting , r e pr esen tatives of th e Regional Office of HUD, Hou sing Assistance Section, r ead to the group from a "circular" dated 3 / 22 / 68 which was tr ~nsmi t ted to local Housing Authorities from Washington HUD ( Mr . Don H:-1 ITLn2 l) in r egard to "social goals for public housing. " Mr . Hu mme l indicated th a t as a matter of nationa l policy, urgent and major social objective s included : More attention to resident ' s dignity, privacy, and persona l safety. Specia l attention shou ld be give n to the elimi nation of unnec e ssary ru l es and r egula t ions. Leadership to achieve better and more co ordinated social s ervices fJr project tenan ts. Incr ease d training and emp loyme nt of tenant s in p ro j e ct ma nageme nt. The deve l opme nt of equ itabl e syste ms for handling gr i evances . Great ly e xpande d p ~rt icipation of tenan ts in pro j ect mana gement a f fai rs and progra~s designed to strengt he n th e self-sufficiency of t enants . �Mr . L. F . Carson Page two De ce~ber 9, 19 68 Mr . Humme l ' s directive ind i cated tha t n at iona l and regional offices of h'DD" should give attention to th e s e ma tters, but st a t ed that " it i s the loc a l Rousing Authorit ies who wi ll .m3.ke th e goals a reality. It is they ~ho must e xamine their o-.-m operations and m:1.ke the chang_e s cal l ed for by their findin gs. " He rec om.ruended i mme diate rev i ew of the following : The r aising of i nco~e l imi ts where they have sub stantially fall e n behind changes in the commu nit y . The libera lizing of the de finition of income wi th t he respe ct to the income of minors. The adjusting of renta l policies and r e quirements for th e examinat ion of te nan ts to min i miz e the difference betwe en public housing a nd no rma l real estate practices . The use of th e statutory au thority t o continue in occup ancy an over-income family when it is unable to find good hou~ing in a suit ab l e neighborh ood . The lib e ral i z ing of re gu l a tions limiting the nu mbe r of e mp loyee s who may live in a proj ect . The adoption of a simple and equitable l ease . The si mp lificat ion of rules and r egulations . The prov is ion of adequate mea sures for sa fety and s e curity of tenan ts. The adoption of procedures wh.e re t enants , either individua lly or in a group, may be given a h ear ing on ques tions r e lating to Au th ority policies and practices , ei ther in genera l, or in r e l a tion to an individua l or fa mily. The upgrading of leve ls of ma inte nance and the appearance o f bui l dings and gr ounds with th e max imum t enant par ticip at ion and, where p ossible, t e na nt employme nt. ... �:Mr . L. F . Cars on Page three December 9, 1968 AmJng other things }1r . Humme l also suggested that l ocal Housing Authorities : Develop a t wo way corrrnunication with tenants concerning ba sic policy ; afford the tena nts full opp ortunity to organize, including the provision of meet ing rooms and access to tenant lists and bulletin boards. Give reside nts the opportunity to participate in the de t ermina tion of management p olicies and pr actices , subject to general princip l es of H~A , such as renta l and occupancy pol icies ; rules and regulations ; charge s for bre akage and damage; evi ction p olicies, etc. · The Central Citizens Adv i s ory Com.rnitte e wou ld l ike to ask what a c tion th~ Atlanta Housing Authority h a s take n or contemp lates t aki ng , to comply wi th the recom.'Uendations of }1r . Humme l. We are especially-interested in the points l isted above and would appreciate a r ep l y , if possible, by December 17, 1968, the date of our next me eting . Si~c~ r e ly yours, / / / ES / g nd cc: / -· /,,_,.,' /

/ 1/----,\---4-------' I -,-

~

' / ,1 . I • ' ( c. ,, .. / ,',, "--../ _- Erwin Stevens, Cha irman __ :.. / Centra l Citizens Advisory Committee Mr. Edward Sterne, Cha irma n Ware, Stern e & Gri ff in 636 Trust Company of Georg i a Bu i lding Atla n ta , Georgia Mr. Ge orge F . Cra ft , Vice Cha irman Cha irman of the Board of Trust Co:npany of Ge orgia Trust Co:npany of Georg i a Bu ilding Atlanta, Georg ia Mr. J. B. Blayton / / ., , / I Mutuai Federal Savings and Lo an 205 Auburn Avenue At l a n ta, Georg ia --- . I Mr. Frank Ethridge Ethridge and Company Suite 100 3100_ Ma ple Drive , N. E. Atla nta , Ge org i a Mr. J ack F . Glenn Chairman Citizens 35 Broa d Atlanta , ~ of the Board of and Southe rn Nationa l Bank Stree t, N. W. Ge orgia �bee: Mr. Dan Sweat, Jr. Ee 0 ppor· 111i ty At anta, c. 101 i\b ri ecca Scr ee c Bldg . • Acl an ca, Ge org ia 3030 3 • T el eph on e 688 -1012 t T. \ L P arl-- am Ex ecuci ,·e Adminis c: a co r Dece mber 9, 19 68 Mr . M. B. Sa t t e rf i eld Exe cutive Di r ect or Atl a n ta Housi ng Au t horit y 824 Hu r t Bu i ld ing Atla nta , Ge or gi a Dear Mr. Sa t te r fie l d : We wis h t o t hank you for send ing r e p r e sen ta t ive s t o t he mee ting o f the Centra l Cit izens Adviso r y Comrn i ttee o f EOA on November 19. The m8eting was very he l pfu l t o u s a nd c r ea tin g improved un der s tanding of s ome o f the p oli c ies of the Rousi ng Au thoriti es . At th a t mee t ing , r epr e s e nta tives of th e Reg i ona l Offic e of HUD , Housing As si stance Section, r e a d to the group f r om a "circula r " da t e d 3/22/68 whic h was tra~s mit t e d t o l oca l Hous ing Au t h ori tie s f rom Washing t on HUD ( Mr. Don Hum..rne l ) i n r egard t o " soc i a l g oa l s f or pub l ic hous ing ." Mr. Hu mme l ind i ca t e d t hat as a mat t er of na tiona l policy , ur gent and ma j or socia l obje c tives i ncluded : Mor e attent i on to r esi de nt 's di gn ity , p r i va cy, a nd pe r s ona l safet y . Sp e cia l a tten tion s houl d be give n to the elimina tion o f u nnecess a ry r ules and regula t ions. Le a de r s hip to ac h ieve be tter and more co ordina t ed s oc i a l s ervi ce s fo~ p r o ject t e na nt s . I nc reas e d t rai ni ng a nd e mp loyme nt o f t e na nts in p roje ct ma na ge me n t . The de velopme nt o f e qui t a b l e s y stems for ha ndlin g gr i evance s . I Great l y e x pande d par t icipa tion o f t e na nts in p r o j ec t mana geme nt affa i r s and pr og r ams designe d to s t r engthen the s e l f - sufficiency o f t enan ts. ,. �-· M__r. M. B. Satterfield Pag e t wo Dece mb er 9", 19 68 Mr . Hummel's directive indicated that national and regional offices of HUD sho·Jld give attention to the se m3.t ter s , bu t sta te d t ha t "it is the l ocal Housing Authorities who will m3.ke the goa ls a re a li t y . It is they who ffi'JS t ex::tmine their own ope ra t ions and m:tke. th e changes called for by t heir findin gs." He recommended i mmed iate r ev i e w of the following: The r a i sing of inco me limits where they have sub stantially fallen be hind changes i n the comnun ity. The libera lizing of t he definition of income with the resp e ct to the income of minors . The adjustin_g o f r ·e ntal policies and require me nts for the examination of tenants to minimize the difference between public housing and nor ma l real es t ate practic es . The use of the statutory authority to contin ue in occup ancy an over-income family when it is unab le to find good housing in a suitab l e ne i gh borhood. The iib era li z ing of regulations limiting the number of e mp loyees who may live in a projec t. The adopt ion o f a simple and equitable lease. The simp lific at ion of rules and r egulations. The provision o f adequat e mea~ures for s afety and s ecur ity of tenants. The adoption o f proced ures where t enan ts, either i ndiv i dua lly or in a group, may be given a hea ring on questions r elat i ng to Au thority policies and p ractices , either in general, or in relation to an ind ividual or fa mily. I The u pgradin g o f l eve l s of maintenance and the appe a r a nce of buildings and grounds with the maxim·Jm t enan t par ticipa tion and, where possib le, tenant employ~e nt. �Mr . M. B. Sa tt e rfield Page three Dece;:nber 9, 1968 Am~ng o the r thin gs Mr . Huwme l also su gge sted that local Housing Authorities: Develop a two wa.y c oi.11mun i.ca t ion with tenant s co ncerning bas ic policy ; afford the t enants full opportun it y to or ganize, incl uding the prov ision of meet ing rooms and a cce s s to t enant lists and b ulle t in boa rds. Gi ve r es i dents the opp or tunit y to partic ipate i n th e de te r minati on of manage men t p olicies and p ractices , subject to general princ iples of l:l.\A. , such as re nta l and o-:::cup a ncy polici es ; rul es and r egu l ations; charges for brea ka ge a nd damage ; eviction pol i c ies , e tc . Th e Centra l Citize ns Advisory Cormnittee would like to ask what action the ~tlan ta Housing Athorit~_!_aken or c ontemp lat e s t a kin g , to comply with the r e c om:ne ndat ions of Mr . Humme l. We are especially inter este d in the point s li sted ab ove and would apprec iate a reply, if possible, by Deceillber 17, 19 68, the dar e o f our ne x t mee tin g. ! S inc~_x:eJ y y our s, ,,,--/ -/ \ / -- - . I

-

. , , 1 f, t - -- - - - -- , Er (vin St ev~ns';· Cha irma n : U. - -- - --· .__,,Centra l Citiz ens Advisory Committ ee ES/ gnd cc: Mr. Ed wa rd Ste rne, Cha ir ma n Ware , St erne & Griffin 636 Trust Co~pany of Geor g ia Bui lding Atla nta, Georgia Mr. George F. Craft, Vice Chairman Chairma n of th e Board of Trust Co~pany of Georgia Trust Coillpany o f Georgia Building Atlanta, Georg ia I Mr. J. B. Bl a y ton Mu tua]. Fe der a l Sa vings an d Loan 205 Auburn Ave nue Atl anta, Geor g ia ~rr. Frank Ethridge Ethrid ge and Company Suite 100 3100 Map l e Dr ive , N. E. _Atlanta, Ge org ia Mr. J a ck Chairman Citize ns 35 Broad Atlanta, F. Glenn of the Board of and Southern Nationa l Bank Stree t, N. W. Geor g ia "' �EDWIN L . STERNE M . B. SATTERFIELD CHAIRMAN E X ECUT IVE DIRECTOR A ND SECRETARY LESTER H. PERSEL LS GEORGE S. CRAFT ASSOCIATE EXECUT IVE DIRECTOR 0 VICE CHAIRMAN CARL TON GARRETT DIRECTOR OF' FINANCE J. B. SLAYTON GILBERT H. BOGGS DIRECTOR OF' HOUSING FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW JACK F. GLENN DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT 824 HURT BUILDING ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30303 GEORGE R. SANDER TECH NICAL DIRECTOR JACKSON 3-6074 February 13, 1969 Mr. Da~ E. Sweat, Jr. Director of Governmental Liaison City Hall 68 Mitchell Street, s. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: ANOTHER FIRST FOR ATLANTA Tuesday, February 18, 1969, at 11 a.m., the Atlanta Housing Authority will be the host at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the first Relocatable Housing Development built under the Urban Renewal Program. The ceremony will take place at the corn~r of Bedford Place and Merritts Avenue. This new concept in relocation will provide housing for families who now live in the public housing site between North Avenue and Linden. Following the completion of the new housing, these units can be moved to another site and reused. It is our hope that you can be present for this important occasion which writes Urban Renewal history. Sincerely, Howard Openshaw Director of Redevelopment HO:vw I �CITY OF .ATLANT.A CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison MEMORANDUM TO: Dan E. Sweat, Jr. FROM: J. H. Robinson SUBJECT: T.U.F.Fo DATE: January 13, 1969 (\. .t-1 ' ({ '7} According to my conversation with Mr. Lester H. Per sells, Executive Committee of T. U O F. F. will meet with the Housing Authority 1 s Commissioners, January 16, 1969. JHR:bt �The following addresses were taken from the McDaniel-Glenn Apartments list of tenants for the quarter ended September 30, 1968, that moved from alleged substandard living quarters. Each property was inspe cted by an Atlanta Housing Inspector and the results briefly stated below: McDANIEL APT.# PREVIOUS ADDRESS 1482 526 Whitehal l Terr. s. w. Substandard house. This house is to be demolished for McDaniel-G l enn project. 1483 140 Rosser Street s.w. Not substandard. Needs minor maintenanc e repairs. 1484 2330 Perry Boulevard N.W., Apt 30 Not substandard. Meets requirements of At l anta Hous i ng Code. 1485 242 Troy Street, N.W.

4

Not substandard. Needs minor maintenance repairs. 1488 37 Wyman Street , N.E. Not substandard. Meets requirements of A.H. C. 1489 1057 Lookout Avenue, N.W. Not substandard. A.H. C. Meets requirements of �-2162 7 McCallie Boulevard, NoWo 1490 /tC-2 Not substandar do Needs some minor maintenanc e repairse 279 Taft Street, S.We 1491 Not substandard. Need s some minor · maintenanc e repairs o 1223 Hill Street, S.W o (comolied 7-30- 68) 1492 Not substandard. of A. H. C., 1493 Meets requirement s 509 McDaniel Street , S.W .. Part of NcDaniel-Glenn Aptse ? 1494 476 Bolton Road, N. Not substandard. w. Meets requ i rements of A. H. C. 1495 509 McDanie l Street, S . Wo ? 1499 Part of McDaniel-Glenn Apts. 1014-A Kirkwood Avenue, S.E. Not substandard. Need~ some minor maintenance repai rs. 1500 162 Georgia Avenue,

10

S .. W. v Sub standard building. Needs repairs. A case is being processed on this property. 1503 465 Beard Street, - 1504 s.w., Building demolished. Glenn project. 420 Boulevard N. E.

4

Part of McDaniel-

5

Not substandard. Needs some minor maintenance repairs ~ Case being processed on this property. �-31505 255 Farrington Avenue, So E. ~ Housing case pending on this property. 112 357 Felton Drive, N. W. 1506 Not substandard. Needs minor maintenance repairs. 27 Bayard Circle 1507 /fol Not loc ated i n the City of At l anta. 1468 Lucile Avenue, S.W. 1508 Not substandard. repairs . 1510 Needs minor maintenance 114 350 Hills Avenue, S . W. ~ 1511 Substandard building . Needs repairs. Case being process ed on this property. 370 Roy Street, S . W. Not substandard. Building needs some minor maintenance repairs. 414 Markham Street , S. W. 1513 / 1514 Housing case pending on this property. 961 Simpson Street, N. W.

2

v Sub standard building . Ne eds repairing. Case b eing processed on this building. 1326 Thurgood Street, S. W. 1516 Not substandard . with A. H. C. 151 8 ~ This house conforms 354 Richardson Street, s.w. Substandard building. McDaniel project. Part of /fa4 �-4926 Pulliam Street, S . W. 1519 Not sub st andard building. 242 Linden Avenue, N.E. 1521 ~ Substandard building. Buttermilk Bottoms. Located in 2097 Boulevard Drive, S. E. 1 522 r Housing Case pending on this property . 702 Jett Street, N.W. 1524 Not substandard. with A.H. C. This house conforms 174 Buena Vista Avenue , S oW. (left side) 1525 Not substandard. Needs repairs. Case being processed on this prop erty. 1526 371- B Archer Way , N. W. No t substandard . Apartment building needs minor maintenance repairs. 1527 115 Hayne s Street , S . W. v 1528

2

Hou sing case pending on this property. 221 Richardson Street, s .w. Not substandard. Needs some minor mai ntenance repairs. 1530 420 Victoria Street , N.W. - 1531

3

Housi ng case pending on this property. 60 Love Street , S . E . f/5 Not substandard . Ne eds some minor maintenance repairs. 1533 221 Richardson Street, Not substandard. s.w.

1

Needs minor maint. repairs. �- 5- /12 6 2 33 0 Perry Bou l evard, N. W. 1 534 Not substandard. Meets requirements of A. H. C. 759 Mart i n Street, S.E. 1535 Not substandard . of A. H. C. Meets requiremen ts 306 At l anta Avenue, 1 53 6 s . E.

2

Not s u bstan dard . Needs some minor maintenance repairs. 153 7 32 5 Ric hardson Drive, S.W. - 1 53 8 Buildi ng demolished. pro j ect. Part o f McDaniel 575 Connally Street , S.E. Not substandard. Needs some minor maintenance repairs. 1539 300 Sampson Street, N. E.

8

Not substandard. Building will be demolished for expressway., 1540 315 Ormond Street, S.E. House has been demolished - lot clean. 1541 1003 Dimmock Street, S.W. Not substandard building. Needs repairing. Case b eing processed on this property .. 1542 888 Drummond Street , S.W. v Substandard building.

1

Needs repairing. Case being processed on this property. �-6- 1543 w. 451 Magnolia S tre et, N .. o/ Housi ng case pendi ng on this prope rty. 250 Richardson Street , 1544 ........ 1547 s . w. ffl 8 Housing c ase pending on thi s property • 38 Shirley Place N. W.. Not substandard .. 1548 1/1

8

Part of Dixie Hills Ap t s. 1 566 Hardee Street, N. E.

4

No t substandard . Needs some minor maintenance r e p ai r s. 1549 950 Pryor S t reet , S . W.

9

Not substandard. Ne eds minor maintenance repai r s. Case being proc essed on t h ese apartment buildings . 1550 500 Ira Street, S . W. #2 Not substandard . with A. H. C. Apt. building c omplies 1915 Perry Boulevard, N. W.. 155 6

9

,./' Not substandard. 1576 Perry Hornes Apts. 296 Glenn Street , SeW. (right side) Not substandard . Needs repairing. Case being processed on this property. 568 Ste Charles Way , N. E. 1580 1594 House demolished - lot clean. 2595 James Drive , N.. W. v Housing case pending on this property. �- 7- 1442 North Avenue, N. W. 1595 No t subs t andar d . ,;.;i th A. H. C. Building con fo rms 371 Boulev a rd N. E. 1597

4

Not sub standard. Needs mi n o r maintenance rep a i rs . 1598 243 Ric hard so n Stree t, s .w.

3

Not s u bst andard. Needs minor maintenance rep airs . 1 628 Foote Street, N. E. 1 601 Not substandard. of A. H. C. 1602 Mee t s requi rements 849 Oak Street, N. W. House demolished - 1 607 l ot clean ~ 957 Dewey Street, S.W. Not substandard. A_- H. C. 1608 House complies with 11 11 Lookout Avenue , N.W . v 1610

13-B

Housing Case pending on this property. 696 Capitol Avenue , S8W.

3

Not substandard. This building complies with A. H. C. 1612 2240 Verbena Street, S.W. #7 Not substandard. Apartments. 1618 Part of Dixie Hi ll 859 Ashby Place, S.W. Business use. Now the Afro American Newspaper building. �-8- 1108 Sells Av enue, S . W. 1622 No t substandard building. Ne eds ....-- repairing . Case b e i ng processed on this property . 840 Fox Street, N. W. 162 9 Not substandard. Building needs minor maintenance o 836 Washington Street, S.W. 1634

1

Substandard building ~ Needs r epairs. Case being processed on this property. 239 Wellington Street, S.W . 1635 Not substandard. Needs repairs. Case being processed on this property. 1638 523 Whitehal l Terr. S. W. v 1639 Substandard house. This house is to be demolished for McDan iel-Glenn project. 411 Rockwe ll Street, S. W. ~ 1 649 (upstairs) Substandard building. Needs repairso Case being process e d on this property. 8 0 Bouleva rd H. E . il2 Hous e d emo lished - lot clea n. 1655 5 52 Humphries Street, S. W. . ? 1657 Now part of McDaniel project • 310 Atlanta Ave nue, S . E.

10

Not s ubs tand ard. Need s s ome minor maintenance repa irs. �-9640 Irwin Street, N. E . ' # 19 1660 Not substandard. Needs some mino r mai n tenance repairs. 94 Ericson Street, S.E. 1661 Not sub stand ard. 1664

A

l eeds some repairs. 1103 Coleman S t reet, S . W. Not substandard. House needs minor mai ntenanc e repairs. 2330 Perr"/ Bou l e vard , N. W. 1668 _fot substandard. of A. H. C. ~ 1676 Me ets requirements 375 Richardson Street, S.W . 1671

26

B-7

Housing case pending on this property. 533 Cooper Street, S . W. v Substandard building. Case being processed on this property. 1677 625 Ashby Stree t

140

Not substandard Apartment building . 1678 943 Washington Street, s.w. Not substandard. Needs minor maintenance repairs . 1680 590 As by S treet, N. W.

7

Not subs ·t andard Apartment building. �-10- 168 8 75 8 D' Alvig n e y St reet, N. W. No t subst andard build i ng . with A. H. C. 1689 Con forms 284 Warren S treet , S . E. No t s ubstandard o A. H. C. 1 6 91

1

Meets r equirements of 500 I r a Street, S . W. 1f 5 Not subst and a rd Apartme n t bui l ding . Compli e s with A. H. C. 1692 1 6 00 Car lis l e S t r e et , N. w.

D-4

No such addre ss. 1 6 94 5 8 5 Li n d sey Stree t, N. W.

2

Not s ub stand a rd buildi ng . Hous e n eeds mi n or maintenance repai rs . 1 700 549 High l and Av enue , N. E.

5

Not sub s tandard . Pr operty n e e d s j un ed autos r emov ed n 1 704 328 Darga n Place s. tv. Not substandard . Needs repairs . Case bei ng processed on this property . 1 70 9 605 Spence r Street , N. W.

10

Not substandard apart ment bui l dings . Need minor maintenance repairs . 1712 8 62 Smith S treet , S . W. Not subst and a rd. A. H. C. Hous e complies wit h �-11- 1717 61 I'enyon Street, S.E . Not substanda rd. A. H. C. Meets requirements of 201 Atlanta Av enue , S.W. 1721 No such address. 226 Rawson Street, S . W. 1722 v 1728 Substandard building. Case being processed on this property~ 113 184 Ormond Street, W.W . r ot substandard. Needs minor maintenanc e repairs. 876 Washington S treet, 1729 s.w. t ot sub standard. This apt. building complies with A. H. C. 1732 374 Griffin Street , N.W.

3

Not substandard. Needs repai rs . Case being processed on this property. 1733 3 78 Boulevard N.W .

2

.,,,- Housing cas e pending on this property. 1736 522 Mary Str eet , S . W. Not s ub standard . Needs minor maintenance repairs. 1737 1 818 Ho llywood Road, 11 .W. loo-- 1738 Housing case pending on this property. 52 I rwin Str~ t, NE. Not substandard . A,, H. C,

B~7

Meets requirements of �-12- 1743 539~ Cooper Str eet, S . W. ~ 1745 Substandard buildi ng. Case being processed on this property. n. E. 543 Par_<way Drive, v 1746

B

112 Housing case pending on this property. 600 Whi teha l 1 Terr. /16 S .1-J. Not substandard Apartment building. Complies with A. H. C. 174 7 ff4 5 90 Wh i tehal 1 Terr. S. W. No.such number. 1752 87 Lucy Street, S.W. #3 Not substandard. 503 Wells Street, S . W. 1753 ? ' 1758 Needs some repairs. Part of VicDa niel Apartments. 680 Fraser Stree t, . S. E. House d emolis hed - lot cle an. 1760 642- A Foundry Stree t, N. W. Not sub standard. with A. H. C. 1765 This house complies 3201 Gordon Road, S . W. f!E -1 Not s ub s t and ard. These apartment building s comp ly with A. H. C. 17 66 742 Gariba ldi S t reet , S. W.

3- C

r o t substandard bui l ding. These apartment b uilding s comp l y with A. 11. C. �-13- 710 n orth Avenue, N. Wo #2 1768 n ot substandard . Apartment building needs minor repairs. Case being processed on this property. 1769 236 Ormond Street , S.E . Not substandard . Need; some repairs. 853 McDaniel Stree-t, 'ft. W. 1770

1 2

iiot substandard. Only one u ni t hous e at this address - n o ap t. #1 2 . 1771 462 Ira Street, S . W. V I 772 Housing case pendinv on t i s property. 176 Chicagmgu a P l ace, S . W. Not substandard. with A. H. C. 1773

6

This _1ous e complies 954 Hubbard St reet, S.W. Not substandard. House needs repairs. Case being processed on this property. 1774 69 Maple Street, N.W . /Ill Hot substandard Apartment building. 1775 1247 Simpson Road, F. w.

20

Not subste.ndard apartment buildings. Need some minor maintenance repairs. 1777 32 Whiteford Avenue, S$E. Not substandard. of A. H. C. Meets requirements �-14- 462 Kindricks Avenue , S . E. 1778 r ot substandard . eeds some mi nor maintenance repairs . 253 Linden Avenu e, N. E. 17 7 9 House demo l ished - lot clean. 453 Wi n dsor Street, S . W. 1780 ,....- Substandard h ouse. Case being proc essed on this property . 519 Bedford Street, N. E. 1781

18

.- Housing case pending on this property. 409 Formwalt Street, S.W. 1783 v 1784 Substandard house. Case being processed on this property. 700 Nea l Street , N. W. .,,, Housing case pending on this property. 1785 710 ,forth Av enue , N. W. ifo4 i'lot substandard apartment building • .......- Needs repairs. Case being processed on this property. 1789 1053 McDaniel Street, S.W. Not substandard. Needs minor mai ntenance repairs. 1793 487 Rockwell S tree t, S . W. Not substandard house. �-151794 347 Bowen Circle S . W.

1

Not substandard. Hi ghp oint Apts. Comply with A.H. c. 1807 531 Ir~ Street, S . W.

A-8

Part of Mc Da n ie l project. e demolished. Wi ll �M . B . SATTERFIELD EDWIN L . STERNE 1 r/ ; P CHAI A'44N GEORGE S . CRAFT EXECUTI V E DIR.ECTOR ANV SEC RE T ARY LESTER H. PERSELLS ' AS SOCI ATE VICE CHAIR MA N E X E'..GUT IVE 0 DIRECTO R CARL TON GAP.RE TT DIRECTOR J. B. SLAYTON OF FINANCE GILBERT H . BOGGS DIRECTOR OF HOU S ING FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW JACK F. GLENN DIRECTOR 624 HURT BUILDING ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30303 JACKSON Of REDEVELOPMENT GEORGE R. SANDER TECHNICAL DIRECTOR 3-6074 January 21, 1969 Mr. John T. F.drnunds Assistant Regional Administrator for Renewal Assistance Department of Housing and Urban Development 6L~5 Peachtree - Seventh Building Atla.~ta, Georgia 30323 Re: Project Ga. R-10 Rawson-Washington Urban Redevelopment Area Project Closeout Dear Hr. Edmunds: As you lmow, it is the intent of the Housing Authority and the City of .Atlanta to complete all activities in the above mentioned project and achieve project closeout at the earliest possible date. We are, the::- efore, attempting to clear up all those matters which might delay the closing of this P-.coject. · One of the problems which may affect pr oject closeout involves that area of the project l ying along Georgia Avenue i..lJl.l~ediately south of the Stadium. We have- attached a map sh01·rlng the area in question, which is bounded by Georgia Avenue, Capitol Avenue , Bass Street and Washington Street, and lies partially within Project. GA. R~lO and partially within Pr oject NDP A~2-3. Project GA. R-10 illustrates many of the reasons that the NDP appr oach to renewal activities is wise. The original Ur ban ReneHal _P lan for tl:i. is pr oject included mult:L-family housing for t he area now occupied by t he Atlanta Stadium . With that l and use in mind, it was contempl at ed that 'c.he proper l and us es for the area ilmneoiately south of Georgia Avenue would be for retai l commercial uses compatible wlth a relatively high density resicJ.ential area. Since t he Atlanta Stadium has been completed, t he commercial l and use originally cont emplated no longer is achievable. Possible developers have expressed no intere st in carrying out the r edevelopment as originally proposed. The new t and Us e Flan of the Cit y cont empl ates conur£rcial reuse for t hi s entire area of a t ype properly re l ated to the nei ghbor i ng Stadi um. Hi t h t his i n mind, t he Housi g Authorit y , at t he dir ect i on of t he Ci ty, wishes to a ss embl e t he entir e area bounded by t he above listed four street s i nto one t ract of l and , whi ch Hould t hen be off e1•ed for r edevelopment. This would cont empl at e closing �-2- Crew Street between Georgia Avenue and Bass Street. Bass Street west of Washington Street has been widened to serve its logical use as a connector to the South Expressway. The City's Land-Use Plan provides fo r the w:i.uening of Bass S treet betwe en Washington Street and Capitol Avenue so that it can properly serve its role as a traffic artery. On December 31, 1968, Part I of l\.Jnendment Nine to Georgia R-10 uas submitted to your office. .T his Amendment provides for the acquisition and assembly of all of the land in the su.bject area lying within Project GA. R-10. Already approved for acquisition is that portion of the subje ct area lying within Project NDP GA. A-2 -3. In order to carry out the objectives of the City and to provide for the early closeout of Pr oject GA. R-10, we recommend that the follOi·rl.ng actions be taken: (1) Amenchnent Nine to Project GA. R- 10 involving a Federal Capital Grant of $479,760.00 and a Relocation Grant of $33,580 . 00 be approved as soon as possible. (2): As soon as .Amendment Nine has been approved, that the area, together with the Federal and local financing,be transferred to the NDP. This transfer uould not involve a net change in Federal Capital Grant since the amounts t ransferred from one project to the ot her would be equal. In fact, such a transfer might result in some minor de creases due to possible savings in interest and adminis ~ trati ve costs. (3} As soon as the l and can be assembled i nto one Urban Renewal activity, as recommended above , the necessary surveys and appraisals be made , and t he entire super block be offered for s ale. An offering of this type pr obably should be advertised for at least six months. After the awa.1·d, t he developer pr obably would need 12 - 18 months to obtain leases, prepare plans, and specifications, and to arrange financing. It will, therefore, be appr oxi mately t uo ye ars. before const ruction can start on this development. At the present t ime , the Model Cities office is located in a movable building on a small por t i on of this site . The Mode l Cities Plan, as currently appr oved, contemplates additional relocatable structures in this area to furnish needed off ice space. The building now located here and others contempl ated are occupying land hel d under lease lrl.th a 30- day Cancellation Cl ause. It is contempl a t ed that pr ior to the time construction could start on a permanent redevelopment t he Hodel Cities Office st r uctur es would be r elocat ed elsewhere . . ..,, �-3- Such a move is time. relativel y inexpensive and would consume very little It is our hope that you will carefully cons ider all the factors outlined above, and if possible, will concur in our recommendation. It is our sincere belief that t he foregoing affords the best method of achieving an orderly redevelopment of this area and an early closeout of Project GA. R~lO. Sincerely yours , .. · /!

&$_5/,_t ! ~

Lester H. Persells Associate Executive Director Enclosure cc: Yir. Earl Metzger MCP - HUD - Room 852 Mr. Rodney M. Cook Mr. Charles Davis Mr . Collier Gladin Mr. Earl Lander s LHP :as �,{I~,.,,

I' " '"""""

M. C. """ B . SATTERFIELD E XE CUTI V E DIR E CTOR AND S ECRETARY < LESTER H. PERSELLS GEORGE S . CRAFT ASSO CI A TE E X EC U T .I V E O IA ECTOR VI CE CHAIRMAN CARL TON GARRETT DIRECT O R J, OF FIN AN CE GILBERT H . BOGGS B. SLAYTON DIRECTOR OF HOU S ING FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW JACK F . GLENN DIRECTOR 824 H URT BU I L D ING ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30303 JAC KSON OF REDEVELOPMENT GEORGE R . SA NDER TECHNICAL DIRECTOR 3-6074 February 13, 1969 Mr. R. Earl Landers Administrative Assistant to Mayor City Hall 68 Mitchell Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Landers: ANOTHER FIRST FOR ATLANTA Tuesday, February 18, 1969, at 11 a .,m., the Atlanta Housing Authority will be the host at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the first Relocatable Housing Development built under the Urban Renewal Program. The ceremony will take place at the corner of Bedford Place and Merritts Avenue. This new concept in relocation will provide housing for famil~es who now live in the public housing site between North Avenue and Linden. Following the completion of the new housing, these units can be moved to another site and reused. It is our hope that you can be present for this important occasion which writes Urban Renewal historyo Sincerely, Howard Openshaw Director of Redevelopment HO: vw

�