Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
July 10, 1968 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR
CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman
Housing Resources Committee
MALCOLM D. JONES
Housing Coordinator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
Director of Governmental Liaison
Re your note for my thoughts on attached explanation oi Section
413 "Low and Moderate Income Housing in Residential Urban Renewal
Areas", in report of the House Banking and Currency Committee on the
"Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968", I have had some difficulty
in understanding the explanation. This may be partially because of the
poor reproduction of page 53. The first word of line 14 of page 53
reads "adequate!y". This is confusing, in view of the tenor of the
remainder of the paragraph. I believe this word should read "inadequately".
My understanding of the explanation is that whereas, currently
in any Urban Renewal Project to be developed for predominently
residential use, at least 20% of the units to be developed must be
standard and of low and moderate cost, whereas the proposed amendment
requires that 50% of the units to be developed in all Urban Renewal
Areas in a community must be of low and moderate cost (with at least
20% of them falling in the category designed for low-income families).
The proposed requirements would not be retroactive, but would apply
to future Urban Renewal Projects.
In view of the difficulty which we have already experienced with
respect to the proposed development of the Federal Pen Site, whereby
initially the Housing Authority did not propose to have constructed on
it only units for the lowest income families; and the position which
the Housing Resources Committee took in opposition to that proposal;
and the support received from the Mayor on the position taken by the
HouSing Resources Committee; it thus appears to me that the proposed
change is probably justified.
If Urban Renewal is to accomplish its primary purpose of providing
adequate housing for the lowest as well as moderate income families, I
do not share Hugh Meilds feeling that the proposed change would hurt a
community or unduly restrict and deprive the Urban Renewal program of
the flexibility it needs.
Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
July 10, 1968
Page 2
Recommend that no action be taken by the Mayor's office to
oppose adoption of the proposed change.
Te an n
AA cle br
Malcoim D.—
Housing Coordinator
MDJ/mac
Encl: Memorandum with attached material dated July 2, 1968,
with extract from Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1968.
July 10, 1968 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR
CECIL A. ALEXANDER, Chairman
Housing Resources Committee
MALCOLM D. JONES
Housing Coordinator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
Director of Governmental Liaison
Re your note for my thoughts on attached explanation oi Section
413 "Low and Moderate Income Housing in Residential Urban Renewal
Areas", in report of the House Banking and Currency Committee on the
"Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968", I have had some difficulty
in understanding the explanation. This may be partially because of the
poor reproduction of page 53. The first word of line 14 of page 53
reads "adequate!y". This is confusing, in view of the tenor of the
remainder of the paragraph. I believe this word should read "inadequately".
My understanding of the explanation is that whereas, currently
in any Urban Renewal Project to be developed for predominently
residential use, at least 20% of the units to be developed must be
standard and of low and moderate cost, whereas the proposed amendment
requires that 50% of the units to be developed in all Urban Renewal
Areas in a community must be of low and moderate cost (with at least
20% of them falling in the category designed for low-income families).
The proposed requirements would not be retroactive, but would apply
to future Urban Renewal Projects.
In view of the difficulty which we have already experienced with
respect to the proposed development of the Federal Pen Site, whereby
initially the Housing Authority did not propose to have constructed on
it only units for the lowest income families; and the position which
the Housing Resources Committee took in opposition to that proposal;
and the support received from the Mayor on the position taken by the
HouSing Resources Committee; it thus appears to me that the proposed
change is probably justified.
If Urban Renewal is to accomplish its primary purpose of providing
adequate housing for the lowest as well as moderate income families, I
do not share Hugh Meilds feeling that the proposed change would hurt a
community or unduly restrict and deprive the Urban Renewal program of
the flexibility it needs.
Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
July 10, 1968
Page 2
Recommend that no action be taken by the Mayor's office to
oppose adoption of the proposed change.
Te an n
AA cle br
Malcoim D.—
Housing Coordinator
MDJ/mac
Encl: Memorandum with attached material dated July 2, 1968,
with extract from Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1968.