Box 4, Folder 14, Document 83

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata



Directors Room
Trust Company of Georgia Building
Thursday, October 30, 1969

The Reorganization meeting of the CACUR was called to order at 2:00 P. M.
by Vice Chairman A. B. Padgett, by prior arrangement of the Chairman who was
delayed a few minutes due to a conflicting engagement.

Those attending the meeting from the Executive Committee were: Messrs,
Carlton Rochell; Robert W. Bivens; Henri Jova Art Burks (representing Mr. William
J, VanLandingham); W. L. Calloway; Richard Rich; Edgar Schukraft; and Joe C.
Whitley. Committee members in attendance were: Messrs. Richard K. Barksdale;
Jack Carrollton; Sam I. Cooper; Rev. Joseph L. Griggs; Joe Guthridge; Roy Harwell;
Percy Hearle; George Kennedy; Joe LaBoon; James L. Muddey, Jr. (representing
Dean Alex Lacy); A. J. Lockhart; Jerry C. Wilkinson (representing Dr. Albert
Manley); Jim Meyerholtz; Sanford Orkin; William R. Presley; I. M. Sheffield, III;

J. D. Wingfield, Jr.; Mrs. S. M. Waddell; Mrs. Mattie Murcy; Mrs. Mary Ann
Blackwood; Mrs. Mary F. Gilmer; Mrs, J. B. Harris; Mrs. Sujette Crank and

Mrs. Leonard Haas; for the Atlanta Housing Authority: Mr. Lester H. Persells;

Mr. Thomas Eskew; Mr. Howard Openshaw; and Mrs. Margaret Ross; for the Atlanta
Planning Department: Mrs. Sally Pickett; Mr. John Matthews; Mrs, Helen Meyers;
Mr. Eric Harkness and Mr. George Aldridge, Jr.

Invitational Notice, Agenda and other related Documents pertaining to the
meeting are attached to file copy of these minutes,

Vice Chairman Padgett opened the meeting by welcoming all new and old
members. He then introduced Col. Malcolm Jones, Executive Director, CACUR.

Col. Jones then read the list of new members and asked each new member
to stand to be recognized, Copies of the list of members, Committee appointments
and Executive Committee Members were provided each member who attended and
are attached to the file copy of these minutes. (Additional copies are available for
Committee members who did not attend this reorganization meeting, )

Mr. Padgett then called on Mr. Bob Bivens to give the history of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for Urban Renewal, (copies of which were passed out to those
in attendance and copy is attached to the file copy of these minutes),

Chairman Langdale arrived during Mr, Bivens presentation, at the conclusion
of which Chairman Langdale personally addressed the group and welcomed the new
members. He explained the changed role of Urban Renewal and NDP and stated that
this called for changes in structure of the Committee and operational procedure,

The importance of CACUR advising on Urban Renewal and NDP policy matters was

Page Two

stressed, The Chairman then returned conduct of the meeting to Vice Chairman

Mr. Padgett then called on Mr. Jim Wright of the Model Cities Staff to
explain the Model Cities Proposed Physical Development for 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Wright's presentation consisted primarily of a brochure, prepared in
three components, which was passed out to those in attendance. The components
were: (a) Satisfactory Community Environment; (b) Transportation; (c) Housing.
Each component consisted of intemization of proposed projects for 1970; Proposed
source of funding and brief statement as to purpose of each project but without any
explanation as to the extent of each project, specific timing or priorities. Mr.
Wright then offered to respond to questions. There were none,

Mr. Rich suggested that since the presentation was on physical development
that an annotated map showing proposed projects and their specific location would
be helpful. Mr. Wright responded that he had such a map which any interested
person could look at after the meeting.

Since State Representative John Hood, Chairman of the Model Cities Housing
Committee, did not attend the meeting, Mr. Padgett asked Mr. Johnnie Johnson,
Director of Model Cities, to comment on the Model Cities Housing Committee views.

Mr. Johnson stated substantially that the Housing Committee of the Model
Cities area had expressed desires that the Atlanta Housing Authority take the
following action immediately, so that the Model Cities program can proceed ina
manner acceptable to the residents of Model Cities:

l. That no relocation housing be brought into the Model Cities
Area until it has been specifically approved (as to location,
type of structures and size) by the Housing Committee.

2. That all activity of the Atlanta Housing Authority in the
Model Cities Area - including acquisition of property,
displacement of residents, and demolition of structures-
except those activities in which the Atlanta Housing
Authority has a legal obligation to proceed and from
which a release cannot be obtained, be immediately
stopped until the problem of relocation housing is resolved,

3. That the October 1, 1969, offering of the Atlanta Housing
Authority for the sale and development of the C-4 Peoplestown
site be immediately withdrawn.

4. That a Committee immediately be formed composed of
representatives from the Atlanta Housing Authority, the
Model Cities Agency and the Mass Convention, Inc, This
Committee or its sub-committee to have the responsibility

Page Three

for working out a satisfactory relocation housing plan
and an offer for the sale and development of the C-4
site and other land in the Model Cities area, The
problem of relocation housing to be given the highest
priority so that other activities of the Atlanta Housing
Authority in the Model Cities area can be resumed as
quickly as possible.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Model Cities Housing Committee was prepared
to file an injunction against the Housing “Authority to stop activity until the Committee
views had been met,

Mr. Padgett then called on Mr. Howard Openshaw, Director of Redevelop-
ment for the Atlanta Housing Authority to comment on and explain the consequences
resulting from the position taken by the Model Cities Housing Committee,

Mr. Openshaw stated that on October 16, the newly reactivated Model Cities
Housing Committee advised the Atlanta Housing Authority of three major concerns
of area residents, and requested that all NDP activities be stopped until satisfactory
solutions could be worked out, The three major concerns include: (1) Rehabilitation,
(2) Disposition of project land, and (3) Relocation. Inasmuch as the Neighborhood
Development Program (NDP), which is urban renewal on an annual basis, was
designed to respond to the needs of area residents, to assist them in the physical

improvement of their neighborhoods, the Atlanta Housing Authority readily agreed
to stop all NDP activities in the Model Cities Area in order to explore new alternatives
in the direction the program should take.

The Model Cities Housing Committee expressed serious concerns of
property owners unable to bring their properties up to the required Project
Rehabilitation Standards, a requirement to be eligible for Federal Financial
assistance. The 1968 Housing Act imposed income limitations on families eligible
for 3% direct rehabilitation loans. The Atlanta Housing Authority has agreed to
review the Project Rehabilitation Standards and the Federal regulations governing
rehabilitation procedures with a resident committee in order to arrive at a solution,

The Model Cities Housing Committee requested that the Atlanta Housing
Authority withdraw its invitation for the sale and development of Parcel C-4 in
Peoplestown, and to prepare documents requiring the redeveloper to come from the
Model Cities area, Attorneys representing the Atlanta Housing Authority and
the Model Cities Mass Convention are in the process of preparing bid documents
restricting the sale of urban renewal land in the Model Cities area to area residents
or organizations,

The third concern expressed by the Model Cities Housing Committee was the
complete rejection of the type of relocation housing units proposed by the Authority,
These units, designed by an architect to provide maximum liveability within the
cost limitations and Federal guidelines, contained three bedrooms (two bedrooms

Page Four

8 feet by 8 feet, one bedroom 10 feet by 12 feet), The Housing Committee indicated
that residents would reject mobile homes, and would insist on pre-fabricated modular
units, Mr. Openshaw indicated that the Housing Act of 1949 as amended prohibits

the use of urban renewal funds for the construction of structures, that HUD guidelines
specifically limit relocation housing units to mobile homes built on a chassis, without
permanent foundation, easily relocateable, Nonetheless the Housing Authority has
agreed to explore with a residents' committee alternative solutions related to
temporary relocateable housing in the Model Cities Area,

Mr. Openshaw stated that a Policy Committee, a Relocation Committee and
a Rehabilitation Committee, composed of representatives of the Model Cities Agency,
the Atlanta Housing Authority and the Mass Convention, Inc., have been appointed
to seek solutions to the problems concerning rehabilitation, sale of land, and relocation
in the Model Cities area, and to permit the Atlanta Housing Authority to resume the
1969 NDP activities voluntarily halted on October 17.

Mr. Openshaw indicated that the two major problems confronting the Atlanta
Housing Authority, the implementing agency for carrying out the 1969 NDP plans for
the Model Cities area, plans prepared by the Model Cities staff with complete resident
involvement, are:

1. Conflict between the expressed desires of the residents and limitations
of Federal regulations.

2. The NDP plan for 1969 and also 1970 were approved by neighborhood
residents as well as the Model Cities Executive Board without benefit
of the recently activated Model Cities Housing Committee's stated
objectives. For example, the 1969 NDP plan for the Model Cities area
designated four sites for permanent housing requiring the relocation
of 278 families, 77 individuals, and 10 business concerns, all to be
relocated before redevelopment could take place on the specific sites
involved. To require mid-way through the calendar year that acquisition
of land and relocation of families be discontinued until suitable relocatable
housing is provide within the area is to introduce a valid concept, but
one that will prevent the Authority from completing the NDP plan within
the calendar year 1969. The 1970 NDP plans, prepared by four planning
consultants with involvement of residents of the six Model Cities
neighborhoods, require the relocation of 609 families during the calendar
year 1970, with no vacant land included in the acquisition program, nor
funds for relocation housing. While the Housing Authority will make
available for occupancy during 1970 over 2, 650 dwelling units for families
of low and moderate income, these units are not located within the Model
Cities area, hence the Housing Authority is once again placed in an
impossible position of trying to carry out plans approved by the neighborhoods
in conformance with objectives recently expressed of the Model Cities
Housing Committee.

Page Five

Mr. Openshaw indicated that the City's NDP application for 1970 is already
30 days overdue and that the application cannot be submitted to HUD until the situation
in Model Cities is resolved,

Mr. Openshaw stated that the stopping of all NDP activities in the Model Cities
area becomes all the more acute when we consider the fact that unencumbered funds
for calendar year 1969 must be returned to Washington for redistributed in the national
program, and that Atlanta has been advised that Federal funds for the 1970 NDP have
been reduced to approximately 45.9% of.the amount allocated for 1969.

Mr. Jones asked if any substantial delay in the relocation and acquisition of
sites in the Model Cities area wouldn't seriously jeopardize the City's ''Breakthrough"!
application for which sites in the Model Cities area had been offered as priority
prototype housing sites, to be cleared by January 1970? Mr. Openshaw's reply was
that this is true,

Mr. Openshaw closed his comments with an optomistic note that he hoped the
difficulty with the Model Cities Housing Committee would be resolved over the weekend
and that activity in the Model Cities area could resume,

Mr. Johnnie Johnson was then given an opportunity to comment again for
Representative John Hood in rebuttal of any of Mr. Openshaw's remarks,

Mr. Johnson explained that he thought the situation had arisen through lack of
timely communication between all elements involved and expressed hopes of a comprise
solution soon.

Because of the time element involved, a more lengthy discussion was precluded.

Mr. Padgett then asked both Mr. Johnson and Mr, Openshaw what the CACUR
could do now to assist in resolving the matter? Both seemed to think that for the time
being it would be best to await further developments.

Col, Jones then presented Vice Chairman Padgett with the Financial Statement
for the period September 30 to October 30, 1969, which was read to the Committee.

Col. Jones then read a Resolution expressing sympathy and condolences to the
family and business associates (Atlanta Life Insurance Company) of the late CACUR
member, E. M. Martin.

The Resolution was unaminously adopted and will be sent to the family and
business associates of the late E. M. Martin.

The meeting wad adjourned at 3:15 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,

Malcolm D, Jores
Executive Director

public items show