Scripto | Transcribe Page

Log in to Scripto | Recent changes | View item | View file

Box 22, Folder 19, Complete Folder

« previous page | next page » |

Current Page Transcription [edit] [history]

Copy f or Mayor Allen STANDARD FORM NO. 1012a 7 G AO 5300 10 12-206









Atl.anta,. Georgi a

on . D. C.



er 2

ovember 28 1



O utstanding

Amount co be applied



Balance to remain









TO -


APPROVED ( Supervisory an_d other approvals when required)


C ts




---- ------------------- -- ---------- --------+-------+------------ ------ ----- -- --- ---- ------------- ------ -+-------+-NEXT PREVIO US VO UCHER PAID UNDER SAME TRAVEL AUTHORITY




Total verified correct for charge co appropriacion (s)

Applied to trave l advance (appropriation symbol )

N ETTO TRAVELER ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION ( Appropriation symbol must be shown; other classification optional)

• Abbreviations for Pullman accom modations: MR, master room; D R, drawinl( room ; CP, compartment; BR, bedroom ; DSR, duplex single room ; RM, roomette; ORM, duplex roomette ; SOS, sing le occupancy section ; LB, lower berth; UB, upper berrh ; LB-UB, lower and upper berth ; S1 seat.

�SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND AMOUNTS CLAIMED PREVIOUS TEMPORAR¥ DUTY (Comp lete these blocks only if in tra vel status immediately prior to period co vered by this voucher and if administratively required ) DEPARTURE FROM OFFICIAL STATION




! (HOUR )







• i.-~u..i.ut:nce 'tO



.... o


,M ~ --

... .,.



- - - -- -

. ., ...,.r _ _.._,_ -

c. ·, :.~v

lJ ..








pm -- i

3 5 t)




4 0 1>


- - -


W •




J • JJ J:!""

•. . · · ..:.-::_ --v




~il:1~ -



\ per a1.em1



w.1:.~.u 1,0


caan - rece1: 11,

~--~r1, ... :.:; _on,,

JlJ .







4 5




VJ.a. uc..Lvo


,, ua. •


,_ C:\,LU·.u,

.'.,_ -


-- .




. pi.u~

-...... .,.,.,i;::~ei




3 ::>'IJ

J;' ....... "


QJ.,L .l'~


4 5D


. - . . ..,. -----gJ.a ,ax-.., .........- .nv.._,._.,, { 1,:)V :1110





. . - -- -




a.u--pon to noi:.eJ.




ueorgi.a. b :·uu pm Via Delta


w.,_, ~ n.:.,_r.on.

,v.·.1: ;r.v,i:;:u




Eastern Standard Time










19- u -




.. -



4~lV;~f ........... .,; .





Grand total to face of voucher (Subtota ls , to be carried forward if necessary)







�toe ..~;; ~.:t~; b.:.c:r--1-i; C!-:S ·tt.:J :'rcJ~~ t!i:~ ct,· 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST):. en url,1n J/:....,fC:lc~~:; r?~~l""t~ ,........ ,.--: · ·--o'f::t.,. -r-.,~1 ,j.·.> ~n:."'I'",.--; ,. l'f.r-<· &.'·, . ·.: ...l . -t..: ·--:-"t '"~·\... ,;, - ·, ;·1""'....,. ",-:\U' .r-,- - ....,.,.."' \I -v+ ., "--' ..... _,.,..,. ..... \,:,,"""•' ~-" '--· ..:·..:,,• ...,,~ b~:'or~ -1-- ...1-e [\~b~\J~ i tc-s e_.,~ -~1.::~ tt:.o 1~ ...~1.. .,!_\ !iY\-r,,. 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST)r 29..~~c::.;:"~..;... j. A copy of t " . li t ieJ -~~t.~~ ~ '1



...,,, _




- - -- - - ~ - - -


... _


·n:.vid t~oc!wfelle ... , t\~vai'1.~:::.t of ·t.~~ Cl:::::::; I.~~:·.li:::·.:·te:n E-:t~si ..,!.::.3 the cole v.'i ti:.cso !tt l:dt] te·a ..·, · . .i.; 'c ~.::~j ~-:.LJn. ~;;.... l !,.:'1.!::;::. ~c:::r.Z.l ~d ~ov~:t·al cf Qort~ rlvctc 17.:Z:lnt">L:.::a in h~ .fi~l J or ~..~r;;-.i r ;:::::.:.::il ..... t,ion ~llich L--:.d.1cnt; :: t?'C.t. tho -""4-r !.v~to ~~c·tc!.~ ~"':...~ .c!. . -: c c~,cci :l :to:.. in cl·o[J.$,.._d p~J·1ci:-~·:.~lon in tl1e zol.t~t; ".t;.... oi.. t:.l'~,=.,-~ ~. :r,:/t;" cr:o . f",:.! ult:16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST) tb~ i'~ctol'$ in!'lu.enc...:"'!t,; th ... c;~~u..-:t c::.· b\U:ir.c:!:3 i n.volve::;..~').~~ n. t,l!~ affa!i.~G of th-, c. t y.. ':!.~,.:; m::io ;,:ow. td rc> 1 !".i ~d ln hit3 Q: ...:, ·w:-1ug t ho ~u06iti,,;u, tr~ _ er· ad "'•;.;::::."e ~:..c- :bllo·,::r~: 1

1. ~ . f?..::>c!:efcll:cr ntrco.ocd t: .. ~!.cc::, u.rac:A :-.:· :'::,vc,lq,-~~nt. "'l!·.;),:cc".;~ in th- ce_,~t.r!tl cit i e;:s £~;11,~:....n.t.~ ~'1.:tst;'.!':..t i,:: t:,.:: -:,.c·,,~criu.~r.; th~y i.1ill !lo.·~ a b.o.m.f i ..J~t. o~ t.t."" ;:".i1:.~Ci 'U ~10~-~t:i.1...0. vf t.l~-r: cH.y en a >ll~-~l.e a 2.-

Ya- . Boekcfcllel" d~l.nn:id t...zt ttr ··,ln ;rr.:J.::~;;.;i


o c_

p;:---Ly,~tt, cnterj:,)r.tu;::: .,

'ti-:.~~ rr~~1.:~ fer Oc·,c?.";c'.""·'mt. r:.:•).'~·.c.:,--r~~r,-~. '" :1 ~ ,rt in U.r·L·'""~-~ r:~v1~1cr·~r-~·.:.-;J°t





.... ..-







~~:~1~;.n~:'~;, ..


I·t ' \-t,.~<!1 ....,~ ~.i,~~!1 11 ..,~....,..~-i.,, •1;

ttct ;:~::-·JcJ.>t;~ (~?v·.,:,~_~ ;:1i:t r,.:;::cc.u:---c~r.:...::~~- op. bun1c.cs::, ..r-.xti~i;r,c;::.ic.u in t~: ·;on a...:·11'<;}.,;··;J::c.;.t .ii.; nJc-c ;;~crJ.. Zh ,10.Ucd for t.c;.t ir.ccn.t.ivcs to C'llccu.....c:z,~ in··r~: t:~~-:.:.::t, L 1 u::-'!:.:::;.l :.~i:.i;~:lti..\.it:~tlc:1 ~ 'ts'i3ll es l i ~ n b.::zt·~,:?~ c:. -,:~rr;;:.::it v~1it.o c..'ld tl1.o t)··.Lv.::.~

?~. '· Ro~JfsLl..:s--r 1?'.9.intt?ln;:!d

ceetor. Ts: ~ ·tt~t"J~1-l ~- '--~.,..-:~y,t. o ·.


£ 1;'1 t ~- -.._ti, f;~,,,1 .,,~·'°' ~v r!~,...,-~t.·t~i-~-~~I!!:....._~ ~. .a t.h·1

..............-.......,._,~n--... - .,._ ._""'"",.1 ~,.,__"',.,_.,.1,;..,. ..._.,........vv..-.._.._.~,..~ •._...,.,,.. ,;;...-~ ~ -~ k - f t . . ~ , . , ~!!C.t'~t a:e··.r o .f f:: J·"'··ii J "\ ~ ('l.~ ~ t ···~).· ,;(. 1,....... "'•::,~ .




Kr. Rocke:follo1: -urced that b;; t:iv,;:::i ~I) t.·;; .,W ~ grou.9 fro:n tile b~i.n,~tt~ ei."!d fir:,2~~! 0-l c .... ::-;-:.::'iit.y v:~ich \K,u. h'i C";-:.:vl o'3 the seci--.::.tcry o:t U:m.oin:; a i Ur~cn l 1z:.·: cl o;?I,;~·~··. };, :~o..:..::d t-!::::.i;. u ~vioory ~u ,._ !:.~icr~o the Sa-erota;.r-,1 uf t li~ 'l'l'\,,c..m.u··s on If.t:;;;:r,'ll. M..i~; ArTSOZc. ;:,t,.


5. The .M visibilit;'[_of Establis ing a "Comsat". TYP,e CoI7?orat.ion for Urban Rchab:!.l it,ation .

r Senator

Jav1ts expreGSed t;he hOl e that, the adoinistra.tion .C>inelly ~ had realized the vsJ.ue of Jchc "Comsat II approach to housinG problems . Mr . Rocltefell er co!i'.U:lented t hat t c success of t· .e or i 3inol " Comsc.t 11 undertaking is no guarantee t hat a nimilar uould nee sGa.rily succeed in t he housing field . .i:!.e streosed 'chat participation by p1·iva.te business in urban rchebili·Gati on 'ff..i.11 'be as~m-ed only if a prof it can be realized .

6. The Action of FlJ.:,~A. in .faking

A.reilable $250 l{i.llion in Specit£_

Assi s t ance FQnds .

Senator Ribicoff SU§~ested t ~at in view of the tightness of t he money market the total umount of special assistance :funds authorized by Congress should have been rel eas d .

Mr. Rockefeller stated that the administration policy on special assistance funds was reasonable.


�. ·""


,~ • • ' .--.... ' .. ,• . -.




• • • ,!.-•

... "'


A .. .

.:.;,...,t..,'.,;,._ ..... _, ....... •.J.,J , -----·.., .... - "'__,

.' :.':;~ ·: .J (:. J·


"".:·.~ t .. ··~:·, 3

'~-----\.·l"~~l"I--,..-) ...--..,,,

~:::~. ~\:::·':.:\:~l'"'~;==--L,~ ~:::; t:~ ~-·::~;~,:~<t ~ ·:\ . . . "'J'"""..~:.-:f . !1 .. ~ .. ~b~l t.:t.i':-.. 1 :.,.

cti--J.~~d t~~c·;., ~~2 -:;,.:.:;.~o ;t ~--:£,_ c. .·~ _:;'"~::-~~ .. .::.1~ -:.:~--..·::.·::-,icn -~o ": ~~ ctc..::,- A-:!!3 c:: t.:.~ a.:.i ?t\:r7.f'.cw~.




"J .




of Colcrctl


~~o:u.~ .




•:;r .. !--lil~ir;~ d.l.'!et:cc .... d tl:~ 1 :::r r::"J"'/.:-~...:..:-~:rt r>:·;...c_::~ clr... :· 1 ~t J~cl:..,1~~'; t-t.~ z::-~::ro t:c.:l n,:,·~ ~: ··-"") l·. . -~Jl:," J..~ ~.,-1c·::.~:-(i '-~~-'; .!.--,1 ...;·-..--:., . n,._ CriJ.::!cl:!·::,.l tt.,~ vl:~·,.r.,;o.!.-·~ t:~c ... t:_,. c·: . . i :.. (..... :.t.··. . c,i· ;;_;__;!_·;r-.... c.r~.,1 t.:: .....~·or-i,,,:;~ . . .. ~ ~~. .~·~; i:...•::;!;1~--,.a ~, :itif;;~ !1 ~~-=.::::~:. :t. :; c .' ~:;·~t :.:~.~,_~~T· t~~l c;?ic;-r.c. u . c .. ·:.~"t..-\..;i·:;:.l e~ :re ~.:..:ral. ~)l~~r'"t :-::..i .t .. ~ c:.~r~.:..4;~..,, c . ~. . . : ..: ..:.!v.::1..., '-'~.,110~.--e:.:1 .. ,.J, a.1L c1·..r_1 :-lc. :.t~ 't.,..·,.:c~. ut~..~ :....~ ;cii'ic ,~;..:.."t~ "~·::.:::.: __,__ euri~z 1z t~~ti~0~J: 04





,.-'"'"1.l1 -~,t:\·1:.-'"i~:: !r:"' '.1 J> ... •., • ~-<'I'!.., t r143.215.248.55.,_....,.__

~,1,.; •

tf~ ,. ·'lilli:.:.s L~..v·e,c=. ·::.,:...c:=. c~:. i~:::::.. ...... .:.:t~ e~~... :.rrditU.?\:~ cljiC~ ;-•c·,1iC::.! '}~-~~ t.L::-... t.::.::! ~.;o ?;;illic.

- ....... ,...._ .. .qr.,... ........

..... _'lull

t,y- CC!l.2.r:r.;c· C t.~-:--ct.,...~\tiel. lt ._-;-:.:,~~ (.; ..i ~'!..~-) 'Zui ,e . -:~~t-.. ..:-..t cf ::....;u.~ln~ 1~ '--'lc.-.-- -: ,_~..:.c-r! {~: r.:.:rol:; o i'ir:;t, etc. .,>• 4


'J:~·, ..., r--·.,"-.-:--~-.;\t..---~



......._ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ ~ ~ ~ - ..<! oil • •,,


.;~~c.":-;; ~ C,lcrifJ.c...-1 fo .'l o:r uzt:-':i.!l r-:.·j...... ct.

t:,..,!~ f;:;'7!rc.te.r-J :,.:~:.-:er ~"Ct!l..., C.w::,!;~,... ~~t(~·~- t~.? ~:t"(J,-;,;;~c*'· ~~ -.. ~t.ty:;5 1-;~ul :- tc T~t.:,li.::~~ fi

?·~- c. :>lecn ~°'!:ltit-.:_:t~~C.. t ..1::' tll·~ •--t~~:_:r.'\.l. t.O...t~:r.~--:::.t L,.,.1~ h~c~ c~cle dll"~':!t t,~~ ctt:::r.:':: r- :.,.,.

t:. . _ ~ •.. ,....... ""·'"'

' ~;ti.


- ·;:, .-.t?.i;

o:-: tte

�Knowledgable Persons in Neighborhood Centers Field Dr. Fred Duhl (Dro Duhl 1 s brother) Mass. General Hospital Boston, Mass.


Marvin Labes Mayor's Committee for Total Action Against Poverty Detroit, Michigan

/ Sanford K~rvitz ' Brand'?is University


Mr o - - - - - = c , . - - - ~ Lall Director, Poverty Program New Orleans, I,ao


Richard Strickhartz Detroit, Michigan

David Hunter Stern Family Fund

Robert Choate Public Affairs Foundation Washington, D. Co

Henrik Blum 1~·1 , 0 · I Contra~Costa County Health Depto Martinez, California

Mel Roman Albert Einstein College Bronxj New York

Dinii t ri Ia trides f.G'i'!~ffik ~_;

Hyland Lewis Howard Univers ity Howard .Nemorovski l IL,..., San Francisco, California •

r ,

Boston College (Avail able in Uanuary) '}'..A., \ -v


J ·.-

( ··..

. .


1._ .;

. Antonia Chayes ABCD Boston 1 Masso

~[,0 ,

Mortimer Brown Chicago, Illinois

Norman Lourie Pao Depto of Public Welfare

Richard Poston N. C. Dept. of Welfare

Lee Rainwat er Was hi ngton Uni versit y Sto Louis; Missouri

?~orth Carolina Fund

Her rw.n Gallegos (Mex ic an ) National Commi t tee on Civil Rights

Francis McKinl ey (I ndi an) Ari zona State Unive rsity

Dr. Geor ge Es se r, Director

,.\ .• 1 Barney 0_ Cayote (


Rev. Arthur Braz i er (Negro ) Pres . Woodlawn Org z. Chicagoi Illinois

U.S. Dept o of Interior Salt Lake City.., Ut ah Preston Wi l cox (Ne gro ) Columbi a Uni vo School of Soci al Work

-.'f.-· A

· .<V-J ~

~ ';1~


ML ~

llJ~ ~#_,Mb

John ~!artin (Negr o) OEO San Franc i sco Regional Off i ce




Archaic landlord-tenant law and practices, once appropriate to an agricultural society, must be reformed and modernized to meet the need of industrialized urban America. Ancient legal doctrine, construing a lease as a conveyance of an interest in land rather than an agreement, leads to the holding that the obligation of the tenant to pay rent is independent of the duty of the landlord to repair and maintain the premises. The sole remedies thus available to the tenant to secure his rights are limited to his vacating the premises a nd then claiming termination of the lease or himself repairing the premises, financing the cost and thereafter cla iming a set-off against future rents. Such limitations, while onerous to all tenants, are intolerable in their application to poor people. Their choice of accommodations within their means is minimal; they can neither finance repairs nor, often, even gain access to the parts of the premises requiring repair. \Vhile states and local governments, in proper concern for the lives, hea lth and safety of all citizens, prescribe mi nimum standa rds for housing accommodations, out-dated legal practices thwart the poor in direct assertion of their rights. II

Reforma tion of l a ndlord-tenant law is a state and local g overnment responsibility burdened with . consequence to the National welfa re. While appropriate solutions may vary between jurisdictions, certain broad principles must apply throughout: A.

St a te a n~ J oca l enforc ement of building, health a nd safety codes

must be stpe~ml ipeg ~nd imprQY?d. Admini§trgtive flexibili ty ~nd f~@t fin ding muet be fo@tered and the ~ower af local courts streng thened. The obligation of code compliance must be a prior cha r g e on the property itself and a ll rights the~ein, rather than merely a persona l obligation of the ownero


Complianc e with law mu st be a basi c part of every agreement and every righto Obligat i ons of landl or d an d tenant alike, as provided in buil ding , h ealth and safety codes , must b e construed as cr ea ting indepen dent righ ts enforcea bl e by dir e c t l ega l acti on. Determination of such i ssues in the cour t r oom must b e facilitate d .


Public funds mu st not reward illegal -conduc t . Appropriate rent withholding pr o.cedures must be devel oped for the welfar e tenant. Appropria te acti ons must be taken in all public acquisitions to the end that pric e s paid disregard valu es achieved from income

�derived in property operation contrary to minimum. building, health . and safety codes.

  • * * * * * * * * * * * *

While these responsibilities are local, the Federal Government can and has assisted: 1.

The establishment of neighborhood legal centers in slum.s by the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, who are making a major effort to help tenants secure their rights to safe and sanitary housing.


The convening of a Conference by the Attorney General to develop new procedures to insure that the rights of tenants are fully and effectively enforced.


The appointment of a Commission to make a comprehensive review of codes, zoning, taxation and development standards. I


Programs and activities of the Federal Government, while indirect in tha t enforcement of fire prevention, housing , building , hea lth and sanitation law is a responsibility of local government, can be of decisive importance: A.


Section lOl(a) of Public Law 171 qualifies Federal assista nce upon the appropriate local public bodies underta king "p ositive programs" and "a workable program" for community improvement through the "adoption, modernization , administration and enfor cemen t of housing, zoning, building an d other loca l laws, codes a nd r egula tions r ela ting to - l an d use a nd a dequat e sta ndar~s of health, s a nit a tion a nd safety f or b~il ding s , inGl1H'iin6 t}rn lUH; ~ng, CHHHlPEl.IlQY gf dwel:U,n~§ e ,, Administrative regulations heretofor e issued by the Secretary of Housing ari d Urban Development should be further cla r ifi ed to dire ct s pec i fic enum.erat i on and a tt ention to t he applic a ti on and enf or cement of loca l co de s a n d or dina nc es rel ated to life, hea l t h an d safety t hrough out the l oc a l i t y a nd t o demon s trat e increas ed eff or t and progress -i n s uch enforcemen t. Such enf or c ement of minimum. co des shal l b e re quired as protect i on of l i ves an d heal th of occupants , i rresp ective of whether a basi ca lly s ound and sta ble area is t hereby crea t e d o


The Se cretary of Housing and Ur ba n Devel opment can furt her impl ement t he purp os es of the l egi s l a ti on t hrough t he dev el opment of nati onal uniform s t a t ist i cal repor t ing, whereby yardsticks of comparabl e municipa l performance may be e stablished. -2-




The Secre tary of Housing a nd Urban Development can tighten ex isting regula tions to t h e end tha t mortga g e insuran c e a va ila b le through the Federa l Housing Administration for prop erty acquisition, rehabilitation and improvement must be conditioned up on code complia nce. At t h e s ame time, mortgag e in s urance a nd g rants under Section 312 ca n be promoted and exp edited . Special personnel can be . designa ted in each insuring office of the Federal Housing Administra tion with the specific assignment of coordinating the insuring a ctivities of that ag ency with city building departments and community organizations to the end that provision of proper financing for complete rehabilit a tion to meet code standards be greatly expedited.

The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare can, by admin istrative regulation, require that each local authority pa rticipa ting in a dministration and disbursement of relief funds establish , in collabora tion with a ppropriate local authorities, systems of housing inspection and certification to the end that appropriate withholding of rents 1 where justified , be undertaken. 1



All DBpartments of Government concerned with property acqui s ition, wherever Fe deral investment is involved , can require tha t t h e acquiring public authority demonstrate and certify that no par t of the a ward granted or payment made represents values achieve d by . operation contrary to local codes - of building , health and safety. All Depa rtments of Government dealing with the a udit a n d ver ifica tion of real estate and mortg age loa n a ssets ca n require ·cer tification t h at as to the property conc erned no complaints are present ly pending by any local authority charging violation of local minimum codes of building, health and safety.

IV At this t ime property owners in deter ior ated or declining city areas a ssume tha t the muniqipality either cann ot or wi ll not enf or ce it§ 'b-u.ilding, tHH.teing, h lth and EH:U11tat on ...... an assum:Ption be.s~d on experience a nd occ a siona lly support e d by Federal s t atement: " Chara c t erist i c of a typi ca l s lum ar ea is t he over c rowding of h ous ing uni t s well b ey ond the level s permi tte d by lo cal cod es. Any ef fort to enf orce th e occupan cy s tan da r ds of the co de would h ave as it s immed i ate con s equenc e a massive displa cemen t of t h e famil i es occupy i ng the overcr owded units. Thi s might b e a cceptable i f it wer e c oupled wi th a concurrent pr ogram t o make a va i labl e t o suc h famil ie s de c ent housing at prices t hey can a ff ord. Unf ortuna t ely, t he latter tends to be far sl ower an d mor e co stly than the carrying out of c ode enforcement . In many cases local cour t s have recognized this consequenc e and, as a matter of public policy, have refused to p ermit enforc ement action. ·

- 3...

·\ • I




�"By its very nature, a program of code enforcement re quire s property owners to make substantial investments in repairs and improvements in order to avoid prosecution. Unless that investment is coupled to an increase in rental r e turns or property values, the owner is likely never to be able to recover the cost. But since we are still dealing with a seriously blighted area, neither the increase in rentals or property values is likely to occur. The present tenants usually cannot afford higher rentals, particularly if occupancy is reduced and there are f ewer wage earners to pay the rent. Tenants with higher incomes usually cannot be persuaded to move into a still blighted area. The value of the property in a priva te sale cannot be expected to increase unless the ~entals increase nor would the repairs or improvements add significantly to the property value in the event of a future public condemna tion. It has been argued that rig id code enforcement in deteriorated areas will so depress property values that new pu.rcha sers will be able to afford to make the necessary repa irs without increasing rents. In fact, this does not happen on any broad scaleo While our understanding of the factors whi ch motivate owners of slura property is very limited, a recent study does c ast some light on this. The larg e 'sophisticated' owners of slum property usually have so little of their own money invested that any f easible reduction in cost of purchasing could not equal the cost of needed repairs. On the other hand, the small 'unsophistica ted' investor is usua lly incapable of taking advantage of any s uch economic effects. i'In sum, it is our belief that concentrated code enforcement by itself in badly blighted areas would result in more turmoil than improvement of housing conditions. But to s ay that this one appr oa ch will not work is not a satisfac tory a nswer to a very real and pressing problem. Althoug h we have not yet arrive d at anything we regard as a n adequate sol ut i on, it would be extremely v a lua bl e to pres ent some of t h e problems and p ossibl e approaches in order to get broader con siderati on." (Staff Report, Housing and Urban Devel opment, forwarded by the Secretary to Senator John Sparkman, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Senate Committee on Ba nk ing and Cu~rency, 7/26/66)


a ssumpt ion b e comes a self- fulfilling prophecy:


Property owners r e duce ex penditures for property maintenanc e a nd repa i r wherever possible.


Tenant and commun i ty morale collapse .


Construc tive community lea d e r s hip is deni e d c re dibility.

- 4- .

I .


�If it be assumed that power of stat e and local g overnment to regulate housing condition in order to preserve life, health and safety i s a prior charg e on all interests in prope~ty, then the equation as t o the feasibility of property repair to minimum standard is simply whether the gross rent roll will cover current operating expense, current taxes, and principal and interest payments to cover the cost of repair. Antecedent mortgage commitments, as well as the equity investment, are irrelevant to the issueo Were mortgagees and property owners , con trary to existing assumptions, convinced of this contingency, their conduct concerning property repair and maintenan ce would be altered signif icantly. In these circumstances, it would not be necessary that public action be asserted against each property in a given neighborhood in order to reverse the prior assumptions. A formidable case exists, therefore, for selection of a few neighborhoods in which, after complete inventory of structure condition, ownership, mortgage debt , and prior history of code enforcement , an experimental progr~m be undertaken by the appropriate local public authority, working in collaboration with the local community, in which a number of the possible Federal sanctions here enumerated were employed. The effort is attractive in: 1.

Presenting a new attack upon the syndrome of community decline and collapsea


Offering promise of reduced public expenditures by imposing costs upon non-conforming properties.


Generating increased voluntary compliance with minimum codes -and standards.




�- - -- - - - - - - --·--·.. .





T e desire to own a home is a basic part of our tradition. Today 62% of American families hav · achieved that desire. Yet there are still millions of families who would like to own their own homes, but cannot. They are too poor to do so under present financing arrangements. At least half a million such households now rent substandard housing in our metropolitan areas. A chance to own a decent home of their own might have a profound effect upon their attitudes toward society. Instead of feeling like frustrated and helpless transients floating along in the poverty and fil th of the slums, they could begin developing a sense of control over their own destiny. They could gradually build a stake in their communities, and would learn how to use and benefit from legal and political institutions they now regard with hostility. Furthermore, provid ing these low-income househo lds with home-ownership assis tance would merely be giving them the same advantage we already ext end to millions of middle-income and upperincome households. These households now receive a large subsidy in the form of federal income tax deductions for the interest and property taxes paid on their homes. This subsidy amounts to at least $1.7 billion per year for just the wealthiest 20% o f our families. This is doub le the housing subsidy we extend to the poorest 20% in the form of all public housing payments, we lfare paymen ts, and tax deduc t ions combined. Clearly, tax deduc t ions aren't much help to families with little or no taxable income. So simp le justi ce demands tha t we encou rage home ownership fo r them in some · o the r way mo re su ited to thei r needs . Therefore, we recommend enactmen t o f a pi lo t program o f aid to low- income fam il ies to he lp them ach ieve home owne rsh ip . This prog ram shoul d concen t ra t e upon slum dwellers because they now ha ve th e least o ppo rt un ity to own dece nt homes, a nd because it would he lp im prove slum li v ing condit ions. in g enera l. Th e prog ra m shou ld ass ist slum residen ts ei ther to move out o f slums by buy ing hom es e lsewhe re, o r to acq uire owne rship o f new ly reh a bi lita t ed units in neighbo rhoods whi c h a re be ing up- graded throug h a wi de va riety o f ot her prog rams too - - as in the Mode l Cities Prog ram . Th is ho me - own e rsh ip p ro gra mwou ldhe lp low -in come fa mil ies b uy sing le fa mi ly ho uses, indiv idua l uni ts in mul ti-fam i ly con dom in i ums; o r apa rt men t buil dings wh ich t hey o perated a s resident lan dl o rds -- rep lacing absen t ee lan dl o rds w ho had neg lec ted t heir ro perti es . .


~ Several ty pes o f a id wou ld be invo lv e d in th is prog ram . First, the slum housi ng un its involved would be substandard ones reha bilita ted by a publi c agen cy o r a non - profit gro up be fore being sold·to nf:N.I owners. Second , below-mark et-rate loans shou ld be use d to fi na nce owners on a no-downpayment basis. Third, potential ow ners should recei ve advanced training in the skills of minor mai ntenance, fi na ncing, and other respon sibilities of ownership. Fourth, new owners from the lowest-income groups would need a monthly housing supplement similar to the ·rent supplement, but applicable to ownership payments. Fifth, some tenants in resident-landlord buildings would receive rent supplements. Sixth, owners should receive follow-on counseling about financing and repairs. Seventh, the public agency running the program would agree to buy back the housing involved during a fixed period in case the owners could not carry the required burdens. ·



�A Pilot Program to .Promote Home Ownership Among Slum Residents

Page 2

A pilot program incorporating these devices could be undertaken for 10,000 units at on annual cost of about $5.1 million for rent and ownership subsidies, plus a reservation of $125 million in below-market-rate (3%) loan funds, plus admin istrotive costs. These figures assume that ownership opportunities would be extended to even the lowest-income families. This program would improve the life of slum residents in several ways besides allowing them to become home-owners. Many would take much better care of their properties and develop a stronger interest in good neighborhoods. Even landlord-tenant relations might improve because resident landlords would replace absentees. Hence conditions in slums might be significantly improved even for people not involved in the program.



In our opinion, this is a prosram solidly in the American tradition, and well worth trying.

., I




STATEMENT ON HOMEOWNERSIDP BY THE POOR The Task Force is convinced that the encouragement of homeownership by those now living in slum areas would have great value.


is an idea solidly in the Americ0ll tradition, and well worth trying as a pilot program. Offering slum dwellers a chance to own a decent home of their own might have a profound effect upon their attitudes toward society.

In-. I.

stead of feeling like frustrated and helpless transients floating along


in the poverty and filth of the slums, they could begin developing a stake in their community and a chance for control over their own destiny. It should be stressed, however, that if the program is to actually reach the poor, substantial subsidies will be required.


Based on an ex-

perience in Pittsburgh, the acquisitio~ and rehabilitation of a dwelling cost $10,400 which required for all charges a monthly peyment of $lo6


an income of $5,000 -- even with 40 year, 3 percent financing . The justification for housing subsidies for the poor is more t han mor ally compelling .



,· I I


The federal government subsidi zes middle - income

home owners by $2 . 9 billion a year through tax deductions .

It subsidizes

the poo:r by only $820 milli on through public hous i ng, public assistance , and t ax deductions. Recommendations :

The Task For ce ther efor e r ecommends ~ t hat the f ollowing

criteria should apply: I


The pilot program should seek to provide opportunities for


all forms of ownership among sl~ dwellers:

single family ownership,

cooperative or condominimn ownership, or ownership by resident landlords of multi-family dwellings·.



Subsidies in the form of low interest loans, rent sup-

plements, or "ownership supplements" should be provided to reach lowincome levels.

3. The program should provide opportunity for ownership outside the slum, as well as in it.


The program should be based on rehabilitation of the unit·

to standard condition, and prior to assumption of ownership by the slum dweller.


The program should be undertaken only where major efforts

are underway to upgrade the surrounding neighborhood.


Organizational capacity should be provided to acquire and

r ehabilitate the property, prepare persons for ownershf p responsibility, and provide continuing financial and other counseling.


The program should provide agreement to buy back the

house during a limited period in case owners cannot manage the newly assumed burdens.




/ I






Concept In its proposal for the establishment of an Urban Development Corpor-

ation* HUD asserts, "The greatest domestic challenge that faces America today is the need to rehabilitate and rebuild the nation's slum neighborhoods and the 5,000,000 substandard and deteriorating dwellings· in which 20 million Americans live.

The problem exists in large and small

cities throughout the entire country. u,

The Proposal points out that .

neither government nor industry can do this alone, and proposes a nationally based, private, non-profit institution--UDC--which has access to substantial amounts of FHA insured mortgage credit, and the ability to offer major inducements to cities, industry, labor, and residents of slums.

It proposes that UDC be directed

at rehabilitation,

i"i ··

with the objective of rehabilitating 500,000 -slum dwellin.g units withi n "the next decade. dwelling units ation.

The propos~d short term goal i s rehabilitating 30,000 during

. i

a •

, t he first two years of it s a per-

For these f irst two years it is as~erted the UDC will r equire a

reservation o f $200 million in 221 (d) (3) be l ow market interes t rate (BMIR) mortgage credit funds, $200 mil lion in FNMA spec i a l ass i stance funds f or r ent supplement dwellings, and $9 million in r ent supp lement funds.


addition, $12 million in working capital will be requir.e d for the first two years of operat i on which i s to be suppl i ed by foundation


and corporate grants and l oans, and HUD demonstration funds.

  • "·A Proposal for a Nationally Based Private Non-Profit Urban Development

Corporation to ,Rehabilitate and Replace Substandard Urban Slum Dwellings," HUD, Nov. 1966

�,, . 2.

The kernel of the UDC concept is that _the large and orderly market it provides will produce an efficient,aggressive and technologically advanced rehabilitation industry.

This new industry will serve the

total rehabilitation market, private as .well as public. 2.

Feasibility There appear to be :fbur key questions concerning feasibility of this

proposal: Technological Social Scale of operations required Acceptability The technological feasibility of massive rehabilitation of many types of slum dwellings has been demonstrated. the 114th Street program in Harlem.

The most striking example is

There the buildings were largely -~

gutted, and attractive, healthy, modern apartments · created, one f or each of the far below ~standard units that were scrapped .

HUD estimates that

the re are more than 5 million units in the nation's s l ums that are structurally s ound and susceptible to such rehabilitat i on. That many slum neighborhoods have potential to r espond to the impact of rehab ilitation i s a lso strikingly demonstrated by the 114th Street experiment.

The pride shown by the residents of the r ehabilitated units,

the low l eve l of vandalism during construction, and the enthus iasm of the ne i ghborhood for the project illus trate this.

HUD estimates that

5 million units suitable f or rehabilitation are located in slum neigh~ borhoods with the potential to respond to the improvements offered.


3. The minimum effective scale is largely a matter of judgement. Experts consulted seem to agree that the scale proposed (30,000 units annually in the first two years, 50,000 units/thereafter) is sufficient to provide the leverage needed with labor, contractors, the materials industry, and city administrations to achieve the innovations desired and to visibly affect the quality of life in the nation's slums.


commitment to only the first 30,000 units may be sufficient but on this opinions differ . HUD has been in contact with industry, labor and city representatives and reports that in every case those interviewed were persuaded of the merits of the UDC idea.

Organized labor's reaction was favorable

to the suggestion of a national contract with UDC containing work rules providing for . appropriate to eff icient rehabilitation and/crews which i nclude labor from the slum neighborhoods .

Builders and developers were pleased with

the signif icant r ole the private. sector could play.

Manufacturer s

expressed i nterest in undertaking research and development of products f or a new r ehabilitation market. 3-.

Co s t s In t he UDC p r oposal the average tota l ·cost pe r dwel ling units is

estimated t o be $13, 000 .

Th i s is a conserva t i ve estimate bas ed on the

very limited experience to date.

There is reason t o ·b elieve that UDC

activity will bring the unit cos t s down due to economies of scale , (

�4. improved contractor management) increased labor productivity) and to technological innovations induced by the new rehabilitation industry. That there will be cost reduction is highly likelyJ and that this reduction will spur private rehabilitation seems probable) but there is no basis for quantitatively estimating the degree of reduction possible and, in all likelihood) will not be until after a -few years of UDC operation.

It is possible that costs could go as low as $9J000 per unit.

The UDC proposal suggests that the initial 30J000 units be financed half with BMIR (Below Market Interest Rate) mortgage credit and half with FNMA special assistance funds for rent supplement dwellings.

The annual

rent supplement funds that would be required depends ) of course J on the average ability to pay.

If the BMIR funded 15)000 units were all rented

to families with annual incomes over $4J000J the annual rent supplement required for the remaining lSJ000 units would be between $12.2 million and $19.6 million) depending upon the t enants' incomes. The mortgage credit and rent supplement funds required for the first five year s of ope r ation are shown in Table l J based on the estimat ed cos t of $13 J 000/uni t.

The ave r age annual te nant income can be expected t o be

be tween $2, 000 (whi ch was the 1965 nat iona l average income o f t he 2. 5 million s lum fami l ies with i ncomes be l ow $4, 000/year) and $4 , 000 whic h i s typic al of income s in Harl em. The commitment to future r e nt suppl ement payme nts depend s , of course, on the degree to which c os t s a re re duced by the new r e hab ilitation indus try and upon the change s in family income. this.

Tabl e 2 illustrates

It can be seen that unless costs are reduced to below $9,000/unit





Funding Requirements (For Unit Cost= $13,000) y E AR






Units Constructed During Year






Units Completed






Average Units Cornpleted During Year





165,000 ..

Annual BMIR Mortgage Credit ($, millions )1(






Annual FNMA Mortgage Credit*


- 167




Annual Rent Supplement Funds($,rnillions)** (Tenant Income= $4,000)






Annual Rent Supplernent Funds($,millions)** (Tenant Income= · $2,000)

1. 6

11. 5




  • Based on half the units being financed with BMIR 3%-40 year

- mortgages, the other half with 6%-40 year mortgages .

    • Based on rent supplements applicable to the one-half qf

the units that are financed at 6%-40 years.


6. TABLE . 2 Annual Rent Supplement in$ Millions, After Five Years (90,000 Units, 6% 40 Year Mortgages) Average Unit Cost

Average Tenant Annual Income




$4, 000













�r 7~ or average incomes rise to over $4,000/yea; rent supplements will be required indefinitely. 4.

Additional Benefits a.

Cost Reduction for Private Rehabilitation The total market for rehabilitation is far greater than the

500,000 units proposed for UDC action during the next decade.

Even if

half of the 5 million units presently suitable for rehabilitation are torn down, the private sector market for rehabilitation is 4 times larger than that proposed for UDC over the next decade.

Cost reductions

stimulated by UDC will therefore pay a large dividend in terms of reduced economic rent for slum families .

This ' tan be considered - to· mu1tiply tp :

by 5 the savings which are reflected in the rehabilitation directly sponsored by UDC . b.

Slum Employment Rehabilitation is, and probably will remain, a labor-intensive


Approximately one-half man year of on-site labor is required

per rehabilitated unit .

If half of this were to be provided by local

labor, r ehabi l itation at t he ~ate of 50, 000 units per y ear will directly employ some 12, 000 slum dwelle r s .

Since , presumably, the same people

wou ld partic.ipate in t he private rehabilitation market , t he number of slum dwellers employed in the new r ehab i litation indus try might be

so,ooo. c.

Application of New Tec hnology to New Const r uct i on The degree t o which technological innovation stimulated by

rehabilitation will be effect ive in r educing the cost of new const ruction is uncertain.

What is clear is that new products will be used when they


·a. become available market items, t):J.ereby. improving the quality if not the cost of new construction. d.

Interaction With Other Programs UDC-sponsored rehabilitation activities can strongly reenforce

other programs.

Among these are the Demonstration Cities, home ownership

for slum dwellers, and neighborhood Service Centers. 5.

Additional Problems a.

Mortgage Terms and Economic Life ~he use of 40 year mortgages (and consequently an implied remaining

economic life of 55 years) has been assumed by HUD.

However, it is by no

means clear that rehabilitation can provide either physical or economic lifetimes approaching this in a substantial fraction (perhaps most) of the neighborhoods under consideration.

Reduction of the mortgage terms to

20 years would require an increased annual rent supplement of $330/unit. b.

Property Acquisition Limited experience suggests that it is possible to assemble

properties for rehabilitation, u&ing only the threat of rigid code enforcement to keep prices from rising.

Alternately, or in conjunction,

condemnation proceedings can be used in Urb~n Renewal Areas. c.

Rehabilitation vs. New Housing While rehabilitation has well known social advantages over slum

clearances f ollowed by new construction, it offers far less opportunity for cost reduction through technological innovations and raises the thorny problem of the wisdom of investing heavily in obsolescent

'--", properties.

An intriguing proposal for neighborhood redevelopment using



a mix of rehabilitation and new housing was developed in a working session on UDC*.

UDC's concern with rehabilitation to the exclusion~£

new housing could become a block to the kind of federal effort needed to obtain cost reduction through major innbvation<>in construction, technology and project management. It has been suggested that the reason the Proposal selected rehabilitation rather than a mixed rehabilitation/new housing objective for the UDC was the concern that labor in particular (and perhaps the construction and materials industries as well) would strongly oppose the UDC unless it clearly restricted its activities to rehabilitation. is a matter of judgment and could very well be correct.


It must be

noted , howev er, that acceptance of UDC might be forthcoming if these groups realize that new construction based on improved and economizing technology is inevitable and UDC can provide a sympathetic client with which they could cooperate to gradually modernize traditional practices. This is a subject that future staff work might illumine. d.

Effect on Equity Holders If the costs of rehabilitation remain high , the federal govern-

ment , UDC and the cities involved will be p~edisposed to use all means a t t hei r dis posa l to dr i v e down t he costs fo r acquir i ng t he propertie s f o r rehabi lit at i on. majo r to o l f o r th is .

Ri gid c ode enfo r cement has been suggested as t he I t i s no t clear that a self - avowed polic y of

l i qui dating the equity ho lde r s by code e nfo r cement won't deve l op a fa tal backla s h .

  • Int e rim Report :

Study of the Fea s ibility of an Ur ban Development Corporation


10. e.

Relationships The proposed relationships of UDC with the local government,

various national groups, and the neighborhood (including the question of continuing responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the rehabilitated buildings) are largely undefined. 6.

Conclusions a.

While very many details of UDC remain to be worked out, it appears

highly likely that the major objectives will be met if a strong Presidential commitment is given. b.

This is the only practical mechanism that has been found for

visibly improving the quality of slum housing within the next few years. c.

The minimum effective scale of the UDC is one which can stimulate

a new industry in the U.S.--the rehabilitation industry . this industry will probably not develop.

Without the UDC

The proposed level of UDC effort

appears to be the minimum needed if it is t o b e successful. d.

The costs--in terms of below market interest rate mortgage credit

and rent supplements amount to a subsidy of a substantial fraction of the total rent.

The rent supplements involve a firm long term commitment,

which is uncertain.

�I' .,·,i , t; ·" j ' .

'.;;,';.; i --~


Memorandum To: From:



November 2, 1966

Paul Ylvisaker Stuart Chapin


I '•



·, I

This is to set down a few ideas for the TF agenda. Some of them spell out further the ideas I listed at the end of our meeting in Washington on October 28. The first proposal could be considered in the short-range category, whereas the other two fall mainly in the longer range category. They are in rough form and need "debugging," and I leave it to you to judge whether any of them have utility for the December 1 assignment. 1. A Program for Easing the Situation of Trapped Minority Groups. Let me first state what is quite obvious to most members of the TF, simply to underscore the urgency of finding solutions. Two statistics about Washington, D. C., dramatize the gravity of the situation and provide clear testimony of the necessity of action -- (1) the fact that approximately 65 percent of the population of the District are nonwhite, and (2) the fact that approximately 95 percent of the school children are nonwhite. Only Federal employment opportunities and constant work by concerned community service groups appear to be keeping this tinderbox from bursting into flame. Though the figures for other central cities have probably not yet reached these dramatic proportions, the indications are that similar buildups are in process in most large central cities. Reports from studies of these areas are clear enough that those trapped see no relief in sight and that problems involving education, employment, housing, health and opportunities for upward mobility have reached a critical mass. As brought out in our session on October 28, a total program is urgently needed to bring this segment of the population into the Great Society. Asstnning that very strong recommendations in this respect are presented to the President and become operative, I would urge inclusion in the total Administration package a new HUD program -- call it a "Program for Humanizing Metropolitan Areas'r or a "Program for Urban Development, 11 or some other positivesounding substitute title for "urban renewal. 11 Two features would distinguish it from earlier emphases: first, it would set up renewal and housing programs on a metropolitan-wide basis as the new Tttle II type of emphasis in the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act has achieved for other federal grant and loan programs, and second, it .would expand on the workable program" concept to require certain steps for humanizing metropolitan areas as a basis for qualifying for loan and grant assistance. More particularly, under such a program current statutory provisions for the array of different grants - in-aid, loan, and rent supplement authorizations would be amended so that the eligible LPA 1 s would be new-type Metropolitan


--- ·- .

·r-...,..___._., _...._ ... ·,------






·1 . Area Development Commissions .ll In addition tD the jurisdictional change, the key feature of these new Commissions would be an entire new philosophy in the execution of the traditional renewal, public housing, rehabilita tion housing, cooperative housing and middle income housing programs, and the new rent supple ment program. While the Demonstration Citie s Program woul d · become the rr.ajor central city program, it would be required to meet the / workable-program-type criteria develop.ed by the Metropolita n Area ,Develop- · .ment Connnission. · -


- · _;


Under the new philosophy an empha sis on ttcommunity enclavestt would. he · featured in contrast to .the old massive .area-wide clearance and r e development or rehabilitation emphasis. The esse ntial objective of thi s- new appr oa ch · would be dual -- (1) it would seek to humanize thei city environment by an across-the-boards effort for the impr ovement of facilities and services i n ihese enclaves,l/ each sensitively attuned to the mosaic of living patte r ns in its environs , and (2) it.would deve lop and utilize workable progr ams tha t would progress i ve ly put into effe ct voluntary open hous i ng gua r ant ee s a nd intr oduce va rious services a nd improvemen ts in all e nclaves . Enclave s wou l d be sma l l in sc'a l e , some times one block in extent, s ome t imes two or three, and pe rhaps affecting no more than a dozen structures in a four or five block a rea. They would be identified on the basis of a wide range of criteria , including struc t ura l conditions in the a r ea, hous ing vacancie s, vacant land; t y pe of exis ting l a nd use , t he propos e d t rans por t a t i on and l a nd use s i n city pla ns, the pattern of communit y organiza t ions i n the a rea , s ocia l inte r action characterist'i cs i n the area , a nd a t tit ude s of re s i de n ts aixl u t the i r ne i ghbor hood. The proposa l f or human iz i ng an e nc l ave woul d :yary lvith the cha r a c ter .-- is tics , oppo.rtuni tie s, and needs of eachu Progr am empha se s would proba bly diffe r i~ close -in a reas from t hos e -i n suburban a r ea s . Experiment a tion i n ways of secur ing community par ticipation in e ncla ve are as wo uld be a n i mpor tant pa r t of a ttaining respons ible invo l vement of r es i den t s i n suc h art e ffo rt . The hous ing aspe ct of the program might i nvolve publ i c l a nd a cquisition of sca tte red propert ie s a few a t a t i me and the r e placement of outworn struc t ure s wi t h new one s ; s ome might i nvolve r e habilita tion by priva t e groups

. I

1/ The t itle Me tropolita n Area Deve l opme n t Conm1i s s i on" is intended t o convey emphasis on bui l ding and deve lopment function s , a nd might be cons olidate d wit h the me tropol i t a n planning and pr ogramming functions t ha t are empha size d under T"itle II of the 1966 Act. Whethe r it is po litica lly £eas i ble to phase out the pr esent - day mun icipal programs in re newa l and public housing, I would de f e r to othe rs on the TF on t his ques tion, but under any cir cums t a nces, the new metr opoli tan empha sis, afte r allowi ng for a trans i tion per i od, should rece i ve the lion 's sha re of loa n a nd gran t author i za tion . I I This would mean i n troducing some of the same coordinat ive me chanisms provided for under t he Demons tra tion Citie s Program i n to t h i s Program. ·;"··· ·~,


�~:.~·;.~·f.. -=-~.,.;~~ ~




- .,...~·-:~™--16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST) r"= ' ~J143.215.248.55-~;~~l:~==--- -r_.1__ >··

' I



. _\


__; ~



~: '\1 r_;.i_;;~,,..-

-~._::;~~..;:::::~~- ...


--- ------ ---+- - - ~ ___._. , .. -------- - - - -----·-=- - - - - -

- -7







or cooperatives and be planre d variably, some with and some without rent . supplements. The key concept in the development of plans for these enclaves would be voluntary open housing guarantees.JI Enclaves in outlying suburban arec!,s would be encouraged to receive small numbers of deprived families .f rom the central city, and those in central areas would be designed t~ receiv~Jamilies of varying socio-economic circumstances seeking close-in locations; For success of such a _Program a great deal depends on develop~ng responsible participation by re.sidents of enclave connnunities and in keeping the scale of adjustment at low key. I

I! I



To -achieve the full leverage ;iJa program of this kind, special related efforts ··in local services, educatlon, employment, health, social work, and recreation would be developed, especially in the central city areas. · By and large schools would be found in interstitial areas bebveen enclaves and depended upon to help supply a cementing force to the efforts in surrounding enclaves. In short' the Program f .o r HumaniZ>ing Met'ropolitan Areas is based on a philosophy of responsible involvement of small groups in making their . block or locale a 11 foster home 11 . for . a few new families. A backup effort in s pecial education, employment and other services would be an essential feature of the Program. In effect, in the large me tropolitan a r eas this Program in a _m etropolitan-wide framework would become a complement to the Demonstration Cities Program which centers on the .c entral city problem. 2. A St epped-Up Effort in Re search on Inter-Group Re lations and Liva bility in the City. The severa l rece nt crise s in ce ntral cities of large me tropolitan areas and the groping a ction efforts to alleviate t he se situa tions cle arly indicate a failure in ba ckup r esearch. In ·some r espe cts more serious, there is a lack of an evaluation effort on action taken which would enable conclusions to be drawn on t he relative effectiveness of measures used. In any effort to institute a ction programs in are as· as sensitive as tho se of trappe d popula tions, and ce rtainly in a ny program to e liminate ca u ses of t he se conditi ons , a major r esearch thrust is r e quired, one on · t he order of that which this country has mounted in space research or in medica l research in recent years. _....,, ,

Ce rtainly the s ocial problems of today s hould- be hi gh in priority of attent ion . But .in be late dly re searching t he s e pr oblems , t he big prob l ems of tomorr ow should not be over looke d . One pr oblem r apidly desce nding on ~itie s is that of a dj ustments to changed ]Etterns of liv ing which wi ll come fr om shorter work week. Ther e is a great deal of s~ecula tion on the boredom

J / Obvious l y vigor ous Admini stration l eadersh i p i n amending the Demonstr ation Cities and Metropol itan Development Act of 1966 to e l iminate Sec . 205(f ) would be esse ntial .


! i·




�of urbanites and their social psycho l og ical prob l ems of adjustment; the re is speculation abo~t two-house livi ng arrangements becoming much more widespread wit h attendant changes in re c rea tion empha ses and traffic patterns; and there are all sorts of unknowns i nvolve d i n new transportation and communications technologies. With ;1 11 this i n t e rest and speculation, t here is little systerna tic research going on that would en able cities to take account of these changes in the pub l i c work s a nd service programs of a catching-up and remedial sort be i ng l a unche d today, much less ena ble them to embark on programs of a more pos i tive kind de signed for the Great Society. A thir d research emphasis clea ly needed is one which frontally e xamines the new kind of urban envi r onment res presented in the belts of urba n deve l opme nt extending over seve r a l sta t es . These appear to be superce d ing the metropolitan area as a n ur ban environment (just at the time whe n me t ro pol itan-wide approaches are rece iving a t t ention in Federal legisla tion fo r the :first time to a significan t extent)G The qualitative aspects of liv ing conditions in such regions of the k i nd noted above is one facet of th i s envir onment, but also involve d is the whole area of governmental mechanisms for dealing with needs a nd prob lems in these belts. Sec. 1011 on the Urba n Environmen t a l Stud i es of the Demonstration Cities and Me tro politan Development Act of 1966 needs t o be grea tly broa dened in conce pt to recognize these three area s of neede d research. 3. The Wheaton Proposal for Me tropolitan Ar ea Fi s ca l Res pons ib ility and Actio~ . Although W. L. C. Whea ton 2 s pr oposa l is already i n t he pub lic domain, i t has not been widely cir c ulated as-ye t . I n any cas e, the r e a re f ea tures o f his conce pt of 11 Me tr opoli t an Target Pl a nn i ng 11 which ma y ha ve me rit fo r consideration by the TF i n t he s e cond stage of our work. Ve ry br ie f ly he _ proposes using Federal gr a nt progr ams t o ac h ieve a more equitable d is tribu t i on of fiscal r e sponsibil i ty among t he municipalities of a me tropolitan area, particularly in the a rea s of educa tion and housing . I attach a c opy of his pape r.

�Tb foll 1)

f lnt

. t~

Al t 0 Ut f

Z) .3 )

. ill



h )


fte• c:tt



to the

x cutlv OfU .


- con: .



Homeownership Anthony Downs·, Chairman Julian Levi Edwin C. Berry Landlord-tenant Julian Levi, Chairman Stuart Chapin · Urban Development Corp. Ben Alexander, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker John Dunlop Ezra Ehrenkrantz Neighborhood information center Theodore Sizer, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker Ivan Allen Ralph Helstein


fGl- ~-- - ~.,,....,.--- ...-------,-.-c,'r,-; n~ '( 1- ~- -~--------r (~ l ,. ,·, ~ -- ~ - -~ :.. ,-,+ -----~--.r=·~ -..../ \ ,. '





MEETING OF TASK FORCE ON CITIES Washington, October 28, 1966

Rough Notes taken by Paul Ilvisaker

Distri but i on : -

Dr . Julian Levi Honorable Ivan Allen Mr . Ben Alexander Mr . Edwin C. Berry Mr . stuart Chapin Mr . Anthony Downs Professor John Dunlop Mr. Ezra Ehrenkrant z Mr. Ralph Helstein Dr. Theodore Sizer Mr. Ar Dee Ames


�Notes taken at meeting with Joe Califano, White House, Saturday, October 22, 1966 Mr. Califano The Task Force is to have a short and long-range agenda with respective deadlines being December 1 and June 1. For the short-range the questions:-

(1) (2) (3) (4) ( 5)

Should we encourage home-ownership in the slums and if so by what methods? Does the idea of an urban development corporation for rehabilitation make sense? How can we honor the Presidential pledge to prov ide legal services for tenants in the ghetto? How can we honor the Presidential pledge for neighborhood service centers? What about the proposed metropolitan expediter?

Task Force should proceed without constraints of costs and politics. We should keep in mind several other task forces operating in areas close to ours. For example, the "In-House" task force under Shriver to develop more permanent answers to the hot summer problem. Another headed by Bill Carmichael on personnel for the Great Society . The subject of transportation is currently being thoroughly examined with a view towards setting up a new Department of Transportationj to that extent it's not a subject on our task force's agenda. Two Congressional committees having the same personnel will be holding hearings during our tenure. One chaired by Senator Muskie, exploring the proposal for a domestic security council. The second chaired by Senator Ribicoff which will resume in December will not call government witnesses for a while. It will con centrate first on non-governmental experts, beginning with the problems of data and areal power arrangements. Meeting with Secretary Weaver Concerned with:(1)

(2) ( 3)

the development of national urban policy respecting migration and location of the national populationj encouraging a more positive role by the states in urban policy developmentj metropolitan organization.

Robert C. Wood Under Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Developmen~ HUD is now concerned with several major pr ob~ems:-


(1) (2) (3)


working at s cale: fo r example, they now have $2 billion of urban renewal appli cations with only $200 million available; building up the staff ing c apabilitie s of the Department; general r eorgani zation; de-centralization of HUD operations -- bett er informat i on systems are needed if de- centralization is to b e carried out.

The new programs occupying HUD' s attention of late: "model" cities; new connnunities; expediter; metr opolitan desks; metropolitan planning. HUD has been pr oceeding on the strategy of open opti ons; the expansion of free choice for the individual; model for neighborhood facilities; home ownership & jobs in the ghetto; provide count erparts f or the public s ector. Wood's adv i ce t o the Task Force:(1)

Address ourselves to thoughts about cities; not only response t o them and t he ir needs.


Concent r at e on t he infra-struct ure in research & training . has been manpower .

Real constraint

M. Cart er McFarland Assistant Commissioner f or Progr ams

FHA Has been working c l os el y with Henry Schecht er c~ec k out t he i dea of indi genous ownership of wi th as s ympatheti c an out l ook a s possi ble. vi nced ther e i s no s ingl e panacea; I det ected he t ried to allow i n hi s di sc uss i ons.

sinc e they were assi gned t o s l um pr operty . They have begun At t he v ery l ea st t hey are conmor e of a grain of cyni c ism than

They start from a few b a s i c statistics : 9 milli on sub -st andar d dwelling units nat i onwi de; of which 48% are owner -oc c upi ed and 52% re nted. However , a gre at v ari ance between centra l c i ty and s uburb. - -r n the s l ums : 21% owner- occupi ed and 79% rented -- in the suburbs : 52% owner- occupi ed and 48% rented. It is thei r impression that absent ee owners are le s s r espons ive to mai ntenanc e eff orts than owners who occupy. Al s o that absent ee ownershi p i s incr eas i ng and getting "less desi rab l e . " They fee l that ownership ha sn't been str es s ed as part of urba n re newal and 0E0 operations. Some proposal s:

(1 ) (2 ) (3)

tie in any program wi th the mode l cit i es program which offers supporting services; use the urba n devel opment corporat i on if l egislated; allow for several forms of ownership ranging from individual ownership to cooperat i ve.

�-3Task Force questions included:-



Are there other and more effective techniques for getting the desired results other than encouraging ownership?


Can you use old and new techniques for driving down the costs of property in the slum areas? These costs are now being sustained by present governmental programs.


Wha~ can we say about the possibility of "steady state" maintenance?


Aren't we trying to eliminate slums and how does slum ownership fit into that objective?

William D. Carey Assistant Director Bureau of the Budget So far no comprehensive strategy has been arrived at in the federal government replying to varying proposals for the neighborhood information service centers. During the summer several agencies produced "talking documents" for the Cabinet Cormnitt ee. Then the President's Syracuse speech "overtook" the Task Force with a . "get cracking" order. . There emerged a servic e group for the facilities approach of HUD, the latter focusing on recreation, etc. They were then talking about $50 million drawn from "pooled" program monies. Presently they are thinking of experiments in 14 cities of 3 classes -- the sponsor. ing coalition would be OEO , HUD, Labor and HEW. The purpose would be to provide one-stop soc ial services to use 3 different models. Physical facilities would not be the primary emphasis. The key would be to br ing toget her all serv i ces and clients and evaluate the experiments. Ralph Tayl or As si stant Secretar y for Demon st rat ions and Int er governmental Relations HUD If model cities program is to succeed, need a rehabilitation industry of a scale that hasn't yet emerged. Industry, large contractors and labor ar e s~itti sh. The proposed UDC approach using low interest rates and much volume as l evers, hopefully might break through. The question remains whether the UDC would have its own H&D or let industry do this according to performance standar d s that UDC would set. Major questions have to do with the market . Another question has to do with local mechanisms. Indi genous c9operatives might be one answer. '

As for the proposed expediter -- it ' s now be ing c alled a representative. It should not be confused with the idea of the metropolitan coordinator which is dead. The representative is to be the federal "pr esence " -- housed in HUD but

�-4available to all agencies. It would be a source of information on federal · programs; clearing house; .liaison; feedback; facilitator. HUD is ready to go in six experimental cities not necessarily the model c ities and concentrating on state capitals . . Martin Richman Off ice of Legal Couns el Department of Justic e The Attorney General ' s work with landlord-tenant relations has taken its marching orders from the Syr acuse speech . It will Qe cal ling a conference in early December . They will be apparently concerned with tax incentives, though they are not deali ng directly wi th the que st i on of r educi ng local property taxation . . Comments from Task Force Mayor Allen Nat urally and necessaril y i s conc erned with i mmediate probl ems especi ally the need for publi c hous ing and the problems of race and minoritie s.

Mr. Helstein Agr ees that t he most pr essing prob lem is t hat of the ghetto.

Mr. Downs ·Disagr ees wit h Secr et ary Wirtz i f i t means forgetting the immediate probl ems of the ghetto and r a ce.

Dr . Chapin Especially c oncerned with three sub j ects : (1) Impact on l ivi ng patt ern s of t he short er work week . (2 ) · Emerging urban form; concentrating on the inner - cit y a nd regi onal arrangement s necessary to get linear development . (3) The dynamite of the central city -- wondering if there isn ' t a General Gavin idea of enclaves of development.

Mr . Ehrenkrant z Two matters on his mind:

(1 ) (2 )

urban development corporation developing the data systems and inventory we need on an accumulat ing basis.

Mr. Alexander Impressed with the fundamental outline of the urban problem. We have neither a theory on which to operate nor criteria by whi ch to measure purp0se.

�·,_. ,,

10/24/ 66 NEW PROGRfMS


Initiated {or to be I nitiatea)under Legisl ation · Enacted from J une 30, 1; 61 t o Date l ·.


Bel ow- market interest rate FHA rental housing f or l ow- and moderateincome families .

Urban mass transportation mat chin{J grants .

1965 · Rent supplements for special categories of low-income families occupying ne r l ow- cost FHA housing . ?48.tching grants f or basic ,rater and sewer facilities . Matching grants for nei ghborhood facili ties .

Demonstration cities pro~. Supplemental incentive grants for pl.e.nned metropolitan developi!lent , Mortgage insurance progrm for "new coomunities" . FNMA "pa.rtic1pa.tion sales " program for obligations of Department and other Government agencies. 2~


Matching grants for open space land acquisition.

Grants tor demonstrat ions of new or improved means of providing housing for low-income famil i es .



�. ,·


Mortgage i ninu"ance 'Utidi.;;r new 1ong;-term l ow- downpa.y.m.ent sal ®t~ b.oudng


Loans i'ol" mass t rans"" r ion fa.cilities!I


d gl~a..11.ts :tor mss trans-

p.ortation deaonstr~
t.icnu ~

Direct l oa.n.s a t 3 per·~ent 'for rehabilit-a.tion of hou::;ing or business prop..-:;rties i n urban r tm.,,,.-:al {'~a.;; .

Mt.1.tchin;g' g;ranta to St;; t e s

Clea:r-inghouse s -e r1ice and technical. a::rni:,;-ta.nce f"or S-w.tes al".d localities on COJmlIU.nity and metropolits-...n ;,, evclopm.ont. pro'olems .

teasing of private 00 sing fo~ lo'W'--incm· e f&iilies und "'X' public housine, 1

progr~ of Departm nt.



,· ,;,.

·..... ·.. . .



.Vatchi:ng grants tor u1;ban'."n!a . io:a .cen.t--~r~ and 'technical as$btance tor sn-!!Ul c:ities.

l':11\ mrlgag~ insurru1.ce pl'O~ :for b~ low-m.M"ket. i11.teNst rate sales housing for low... incomc .f'-.J:..ailies ~ (rehabilitation by nonprofit coi-porations )

Va.riety of financial;t~c-:... t :, th"' : res~tion c.nd :it~tort;i;'i;ion

of bisto:rie structures

il-nd arear. o

Research progr~ on co,trt r~du.ctio:-1 ~ect:niquc;j :for lwusing construction and :rerabilltation a nd urb3.n devol.op~nt . ienea.reb p:r..og.ram on tictiotl~ to imp.rove undc:tstll.nd.:ing ~nd impl--ove.~ent

or urban envil"oninont.


PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION The 1965 Housing Act authorizes the Public Housing Authority to fund the purchase and rehabilitation of existing structures through local Housing Authorities.


This program permits local Housing Authorities to contract a property purchase and rehabilitation with a builder. Upon project completion, the builder is reimbursed for total project costs (land acquisition-rehabilitati~n). The project title and management reverts to the local Housing Authority. FNMA financing is not included in this provision. · The Public Housing Authority makes theappraisal, reviews cost contracts and will accept a cost figure from a bui Ider without competitive bids. Upon completion, the project is turned over (turnkey) to the local Housing Authority . The one requirement under this program stipulates that acquisition and rehabilitation costs do not exceed 90%. new construction costs.

FM7 5-11-66



1965 HOUSING ACT: Contains new legislation that provides a below market interest rate (3%) on rehabilitation financing for non-profit sponsors and Iimi ted profit corporations. 221 (d)3: 1965 Housing Act provision that defines financial methods available to non-profit sponsors and limited profit corporations. · The non-profit sponsor category has two provisions: I) Non-£rofit sponsor who holds property title . Reha ilitates and continues ownership. · 2) Builder-Seller who purchases and rehabilitates the property under an agreement with a non-profit sponsor to purchase the property upon rehabilitation completion. 221 (d)3 provides a 100% total mortgage (acquisition , reconstruction) at 3% for 40 years. 221 (d)3 Limited Dividend Sponsor· - Limited to 90% total mortgage at 3% for 40 years. Investment return on 10% equity is limited to 6%. 221 (d)4 Conventional FHA Financing - Limits sponsors to 90% total mortgage at 5¼% for 40 years. .



�; id


Ef_,.14 =::±





Agrees to a 6% return on initial investment.

Mortgage Terms


90% total project cost {land acquisition-rehabilitation) at 3% for 40 years . *

A limited dividend sponsor must have 10% equity in the total project cost .

. (Example)

·O Building Purchase Price Rehabi Ii tat ion Costs

$30,000 170,000

Total Project Costs


Final FNMA mortgage at 90% projec~ cost

$180, 000

10% investme nt (equity)

$ 20 , 000

6% re turn on investment a ll owed under this provision

$ I ~ 200 per year ·

  • 40 year maximum under law . Actual term d~termined by local FHA.


-FM3 5-11 -66




Bui Ider purchases property with agreement to sel I property to a non-profit sponsor ofter property has been rehobi Iitoted.

Mortgage Terms


100% total project cost (land ocquisitionrehobil itotion) at 3% for 40 years. * Assigns 100% mortgage to non-profit sponsor upon job completion.


Property. Title


Is transferred to non-profit sponsor ofter FHA final inspection upon job completion .

Invested Monies


(Some as non-profit sponsor) .

Mortgage Loon


3% interest (below market rote) by FNMA after FHA insures loon ofter rehobi Ii tot ion job completion .

100% mortgage is assigned non-profit sponsor. FNMA reimburses property purchase price. FNMA reimburses rehabilitation cost. FNMA reimburses incidental fees .

Construction loon


(Some a s no n-profit sponsor)

Fi no l Settl ement


(Sa me as no n-profit sponsor) Upo n fi nol rnortgage sett Iement, property ownership and management is the responsibility of the non-profit sponsor.

  • 40 year mox.imum under low . Ac tual term determi ned by local FHA .

FM2 5 - 11-66





Foundation, church, university, etc., incorporated as a non-profit organization.

Mortgage Terms


100% total project cost (lal"!d acquisition rehabil itation) at 3% for 40 years. * ·

Property Title


Must be held for mortgage term .

Invested Monies


Property purchase (FNMA) reimbursed after (FHA) final inspection upon project completion.

Mortgage Loan

- · .3% interest (below market rate) by FNMA after FHA insures loan. FNMA mortgage loan made after final FHA inspection upon job completion.

Construction Loan


For actual rehabilitation costs made by private lending institution to non-profit sponsor as a temporary loan until final FNMA mortgage loan · is closed. The construction loan is made in timed stages as rehab iii tat ion costs become due . Construction loan insured by FHA.

Final Mortgage Settlement - · Permanent FNMA mortgage finalized . Pri vate I ending inst itut ion repaid construction loan by FNMA. Final mortgage balance minus constructi o n loan payment awa rded to non - profit sponsor by FNMA . (Thi s ba l once covers property purc hase and o ther fees, e.g~, archite c t , legal ' ·, etc.) Non-profit sponsor pays mortgage for term set in mortgage from property rentals.


  • 40 year maximum under low . Actual term determined by local FHA.



�=----= =



1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (4)


I f




Mortgage Terms


For individuals 9r groues who do not qualify under 221 (D) (3) provision!;. 90 % total project cost (land acquisition-rehabilitation) at . 5¼% for 40 years.*

Al I other 221. (D) (3) financing provisions apply except private lending institutions lend the monies instead of FNMA. Under this provision, there is no I imit on amount of return on initial investment.

  • 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA.

c_ FM5 5-11-66


�December 12, 1966







Special Task Force meeting in Washington

I talked with Ardee Ames and the meeting is set for Thursday, December 15th at 10 :00 a. m.

I explained to him you inability to

get there before noon, and he said that it usually took them an hour or so to warm up.

At the luncheon, Mr. Chester Rapkin, who was Chairman of the study group last year, will talk about how they went about what they did.

The meeting will be in room 444, Executive Office Building, and the luncheon will be in the ca£ eteria in the same building.


should go to room 444, and if they have left, check by room 2 3 7 (A r d ee Ames office) for instructions wher e to me e t for lunch.

You a re confirme d as follows : EASTERN flig h t 130 , l eave Atlant a 10 :3 5 A rr i ve Washin g t on Nation a l 12 :0 0


E ASTERN flig h t 137, L e a ve Wa s h ington National 5 :4 0 p . m. Non - sto p t o Atlanta 7 :1 2 (dinner served) Also at this meeting, plans will be made as how to continue in January, with interviews, etc.

It s ounds like a rather important meeting .

�1 .


.. ·-::'


... .. .


WITNESS LIST Subcotnmitte~

on Executive Reotgtlftization

of the Senate Committee on Government Operations Tuesday, November 29


. .


(9:30 a.m.)

David Rockefeller, President, Chase Manhattan Bank Richard Scammon, Vice President, Governmental Affairs Institute

,! ,

Wed~esday, November 30 Roy Wilk.ins, Executive Director, National Association for the Advancement ' of Colored People

Harry Golden, author and publisher, Carolina Israelite Honorable George Edwards, Judge,

u. s.

Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

Dr. Robert Coles, Research Psychiatrist, Harvard University Health Services Friday, December 2

Dr. James M. Hester, President, New York University

Dr. George Sternlieb, Professor, Rutgers University Urban Studies Center Lees. Sterling, Executive Director, American Property Rights Association, Inc New York City


Monday, December · 5 Constantinos Doxiadis, President, Doxiadis Associates, Inc. Walter Reuther, President, United Auto Workers, (a ccompanied by Jack Conway, Executive Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO) . Tuesday, December 6 A. Philip Randolph,· President, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, (acconpanied by Bayard Rustin, Executi ve Director, A. Phili~ Randolph Institute ) Lee Rainwater, Professor of. Sociology and Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, .Missouri Anthony Dechant, President, National Farmers Union Milton Kotl er, Institute for Policy Studies Wednesday, December


Gerald L. Philliwe, Chairrea.n of the Board, General Electric Company

Dr. Philip B. Hallen, President, Y.aurice Falk Medical Fund, Pittsburgh, Pa. James W. Rouse, President, Community Research and Development, Inc . Jam~s H. Torrey, Senior Vice President,. a.11d Bruce P. Hayden, Vi~e ri·osi c'lent, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Dr. Willia.rn. Doebele, Graduate Scho'Jl of Design, Harvard Un.-1.versity

..I •




Thursday, December 8 Floyd McKissicl<:, National Director, Congress of Racial Equality Herbert J. Gans, Senior Research Sociologist, Center for Urban Education Joseph .Monserrat, National Director of the 11'.tigration Division, Department of Labor of Puerto Rico

Dr. John Spiegel, Director, Center for the Study of Violence, Branddeis University F~iday, Dece~ber 9 Budd Schulberg, author, (accompanied by Yir. Harry E. Dolan, Vil'. Johnie Sc?tt, and Yir . Stan Sanders) .......

Derek V. Roemer, Psychologist, National Institute of Mental Health Helen Peterson, Director of Community Relations, Denver, Colorado Monday, December 12 Reverend Leon H. Sullivan, Chairman, Board of Directors, Opportunities Industrialization Center, Philadelphia, Pa. ~Irs. Hortense Gabel, Former Administrator, City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, New Yorl( City '

Tuesday,· December 1~ Daniel P. Moynihan, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies, Harvard-MIT Herbert J. Sturz, Director, Vera Institute of Justice, New York City

Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Director, Social Dynamics Research Institute, City College of New York Edward J. Logue, Administrator, Boston Redevelopment Authority Wednesday, December 14 McGeoree Bundy, President, Ford Foundation vfnitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director, National Urban Lea,eue Howard R. Leary, Commissioner of Poli ce, New York City Thursday, December 15

Dr . Martin Luther King,

rr~sj_(lfmt ,


T.e:=i.dP.:1.·sb :tr Con:feJ:.--n~e

�L1 u n


v t.


Low Re n t Pu b lic Housing

P r or::rn.m :

Nat lre a nd P~ r pose : Th i s p r og r am provid es loa n s or guarant e es of loans to loca l h ou sing a uth or i t ies to a ssis t t h em i n the dev e l oo~e~t of s afe , decent and s ani ta r y lo w- rent h ou s ing p r o jec ~s · f or low- i n c ome fami lies a nd others wh o c a nnot affo r d s tandard private h ous i ng . Th is p rog r am a lso provi des annua l cont ribu tion s to l ocal hous i ng authoritie s to a s s i st t hem i n ac h i evi ng and ~aint a ini ng t he low- rent chara c ter of th e projec t s. Thi s p rogram provides dire ct benefits f or pov e rty- s triken p eop le . Th is p rog ram als o provides f i nanc ial assis tance t o loc a l h ousing a ut hori t i e s t o ass i st them i n meeting t h e s pecia l housing nee ds of th e l ow- inc ome el de r ly . When p roviding a cc ommodati ons des i gn ed s pe c ific a lly for the eld e rly, higher t han normal;.~Low- Rent Public Hous i ng Pr ogram~ per r oom c os t ~ l i mitat ions a r e permitted . An ad di t iona l contributi on t o th e loc al h ousing a u thor i t y ( up to $120 pe r dwelling u nit p er yea r ) may be a uthorize d . ~Ii

-s i

' rtl b ~ i C

6 w3. -S p C Ci a ~ - r a-m.--G-:f-a'S-S"'.i:."Si;a- n ~-t-h it...



'u~W - n'"eT:'c

- i ~* 1 - f ~s.e


~ ~s-.? Eligib i lity : ~h e a pp licant a ge ncy mus t b e a l ocal housing a u tho rity estab li sh e d by th e loc a l government , u nde r s tate ena bling legi slation, to be eligible . The f o rmal a pp lic a tion m~s t b e a pp roved by the local g ove rning body . The Atlanta Hous i ng Authority op era tes the prog r am f or th e Cit y . Although t he prog r am is gene r a l l y l i mi ted to low- i n c ome fami l ie s, s i ngle pe rsons a re eli gi b l e f or a dmi ss i on i n ~he case of the e l de rly, ha ndic apped , a n d th ose dis p laced by u rba n renewal or other gove r mnent a l a c ti on. ~here a r e on ly f i ve r eal f a c to r s de termi n i ng elig i bi: ity t o l ive i n At l anta Public Hous ing :

( 1 ) The a ppl ic a nt must hav e\an address in Metropol i -::2. ::. Atlanta . Th is doe s n ot mean h e mu s t hav e r es id enc e :o~ any l ength of time , bu t he mus t be living _; u pon a pp li cation somewh e r e in t he a r ea . ( 2 ) The a pplic ant may no t have a net inc ome ( determ~ncc ~ram g ross r epo r ted inc ome, emp loyer 1 s records, and incl~d ~ng ce r t ain deduc tions for chi l dren, health , and other f acto~s ~ighe r than the maximums estab l ished by t he Housing frnt :o r~ty . '::::-,ecc af'c : fo i' a family o: 1 - ;i;3,G0 0 ; 2 - :;i3_, i,.0 1 ; 3 - :-~~ .ovv; Lr - ~;3, 800; 5 - '.;i4 , 000 ; 6 - :;;! ~, 300; 7 - '.;:LJ., L,.00; J - :::._,., ::) C\.~ ; S - :;L~, 600; 10 or more - :;).;., 7 00 . Tl esc cw ,..axin,tEl :.:..~-:.12u::·. c2 -,.,,.·,. ·rcre ,:,et i' n Dc•c ~r.w,cJJlb /\.""\.,.l:, ·~ 1 965 !:'."' ' a ·r. -'-- '1 t:.:' .l~i· , , .· - -: " ---. · · ,·~ s,-' S -...L uL ~V s '/ .._, t:n e lS,50 ' s . Once el.::..t:.::ibi2. i -cy has b8e n :;:' cn::.:-1~· , :.·;..-.::.::.lie s ~ay earn more t han t he maxiiw and cont i ue oc cupanc y ~p ~o certain limit s . The se c ont i nue d occupancy max imums ar2 ..L


- \-






...... .



�Page 2 .

El i~ibility

continu ed :

$3J750 for one person, rising a t increments of about $ 300 pe r person) to a maximwn of $5 ,875 for a famil y of 10 or more . Every family moving into public housing must show some sourc e of income whether it be employment ., welfare or social security.

( 3) Families of 10 or mor e must receive a special waiver from the authority to be eligi b le . All other families., me eting other qualifications, a re eligib l e . ( 4 ) Fai,,i l ies must pass a p olice check as to ·moral chara cter . Wh il e pa st convictions will not prohi bit eligibility., being presently wanted f or a_ c rime will. (5) Each family must demons trate the physical and mental capacity to care for themselves without placing a burden up on the Housing Authority . I n addit ion, there are two further requirements for the e lderly : (a) a doc t or ' s heal t h certif i cate,; (b) a spons or 1~h o can be called in case of death or illness . ?ina lly., f i r st priority i n public h ousing goe s to persons who ha ve b een di splac ed by gov~ r mnent housing . Although occupancy is 99% full, space is held to a very s mall degree for such pe r sons . The Housing Autho r ity wi ll also house persons on a n eme r Gen c y basis. 8 or 9 Cuban families are now being so housed . Re nts are determineddupon th e basis of income ., s ou r c e o:r i n come., family siz.e , standar d deduc tions ., · n e eds and o-'che r vari a bles including t h e nwnber of children under s ch oo_ ~?e . The mi nimum rent is $20 and rent can be as high as $0 5 or mor e . For the elderly t he av e r age rent is $29 . 00., while the minimwn elderly rent in a high rise is $25 . 00. Present Utilization : 8.,784 units built., llL~O units i n planning, 1200 units reservation made but n o planning as yet. Total funds re c eiv ed to date - _$63,808,000 . 00 f or 15 projects . Name


.. r..d s


Da te Bt:.i lt ,...,

Te c hwood Clark Howell Capitol Gr ady Carve r Ea rris Pe rry Bowen Uni v ers i t y J ohn Hope Egan Herndon Grav es * Childs * Palrr,e:c *

6 04 630 81 5 616 900 510 1000 .650 67 5 606 548 520 210 250 250

2, 61 9 ., 000 3 ., 215 ., 000 3 ., 634 ., 000 2 ., 490 ., 000 10., 200 ., 00 6 ., 397., 000 9 .,217., 000 9 .,7 36,000 2 ., 523 ., 000 2 ., 595 .,000 1., 942 ., 000 1 ., 883 ., 000 2., 177.,000 2 J780Jooo 2,400JOOO

- -z_ --

1936.) 1940 1941 194 2 ·1953 1957 1955 1 964 19LW 19~-0 1941 1941 1 965 1965 1966

Ra c e -" W \\'

w ( I) 4 K N \1:




1,.r ( I)



Unit s for the eld e rly only . Th e re are 2 ) 383 (inc . udi n g tho s e i n Gr a v e s ) Chi ld s ) and Palmer) e lderly units sc a ttered t h rough out the pro j e cts.


Dn l ... ~ o the rwis e noted) st ructur e s are 2 or 3 stori es hi gh a nd d o not h a ve hall ways.


A hi gh - rise with hall ways.


I t is intere sting to n ote t h at in 1941 about 550 uni~s c os t 2 million dollars; today 2 million will not buil d half t h at many u nit s .


Th is means that the p ro j ect is predominantly white with a s ma ll amount of integration. Wh en (I) is not s h own it indicates the project is 100% of the indicated race.





�Pr og rarr,:

Low Rent Public Housing ,


Turnkey 11 Me t h od

Nature and Puroose : ~h is is a new techni que for the p r ovi s ion of public housing which permits a priv ate deve loper o r buil der to de a l with a local hous ing authority in essent i ally th e same way a s h e is accustomed to deal with his private cli ent s . Und er th is s y stem, c alled t he 11 turnkey 11 approach, a develop e r who has a site or an option, or c an obta i n one, may approach the Atlanta Housing Autho ri ty with a p ropos a l to buil d in accordanc e wit h p l ans a nd specifications prepared by his own arc hitect and to a standard of good desi g n , quality and workmanship . In the ev ent that the deve lop e r 's propo s al is a ccep t able to -ch e Housing Au th ority , th e p a rties 1,.rill e:-.te r into a contrac t unde r which t he Housing Authori t y . a g r ees to purcha se t he c omp leted b uil d ing . Th is c6ntract will be backed by t he Housing Assistance Adminis t r ation 's financial assistance c ommitment to the Hous ing Auth ority , a nd it will enable the d evelope r to s e cure comme rical c onst ructi on financin g in his usua l way . It is anticipated that the developer will be worki n g wi -cn architects, contractors and subcont ractors of his own choice and will bring to the Housing Autho ri ty t he benefit s of his experi enc e and know- how i n p rodu c ing the desired hou s i ng and related fa ciliti es and amenities . The housing $hould be suitabl e , wel l-desig ned, and well constructed, able to stand hard wear f or at least 40 ye a rs , be designed fo r e con omi c a l admini s trati on and mai nten a n ce , b e produced in the most efficient and economic a l ma n ner , and be J,oc a ted i n fte;i. e;hb Q;rh QQQ § t hg. t will prQvide o. t@ti: - -t l1= fui a· a d~cent ~nvirorune nt and on site s a cc eptabl e t o t h e Housing Auth ori ty a nd HAA f or l ow- r ent hous i n g . It will be necessar y for the developer and the Housing Authority to d iscuss in g ene ra l terms the types and si zes ( n umber of b e d rooms) of the h ous ing and f a cilities to be deve lop e d . Th e d e velope r s h ould con sult wi th t he Housin g Authorit y f rom t i me t o time during t he course of his planni n g t o insure t h e a cc e p tance of his p l ans when th ey are dev e lop e d . In or d er t o p r omote .s maller p ublicly - owne d d ev e lopme~t s , e spe cially to enable l ow- income families to l iv e i n tn e same e nvironmen t with famili e s o r i n div iduals of highe r i n c ome a n d possib ly u nde r arrang eme n ts whe r eb y th e t ena~0 s a nd the p rop e r ty a r e no t s p e cifi c a lly id e nti fied as be i ~g pu blic or priv at e . Fo r thes e r e as ons d ev el op e r s ar e enc ourag ed to prop o se sites cons i de r ed· t o b e t oo l a r 6 e fo r e xclus ive ly publ ic h ou s i n g to p l an comb ined priva te - p ublic d evelooment s which will be n e fi t b oth t he l ow- i n come tenants s ub s i di z e d by t he HAA t h r ough t h e Hous ing Autho rity ~nd t t e te na nts of th e d ev e lop e r who may be low, mid d l e , or h i ghe r inc ome , dep endin g on fina n c ing and e conomic fea sib i l ity . Suc h a c omb i nat ion could als o i n clude c ooperativ e or cond ominium housing .

- '-\ -

�Pa~c 2 .

Eligibility : Private developers wh o h ave sites or op tions on sites should contact the Atla nta Housing Authority.

Present Ut ilization : This s h ould be an e x c e llent means through which None. t o c onst ruc t in a s h orter length of time the 1,200 units f or wh ich t he Atlanta Housing Authority presently has a reservation .


FHA 221 Mort gage Insuranc e for Low and Yio derate Priced Homes.

Nature and Purpose : A program of mortgag e insurance to assist p rivate i n dustry for the c ons tructi on or rehabilitation of individua_ sales h ousing , and for the purchase and r epa ir of new or existing multi - family units (up to 4 - family units) that are to be sold or rented to low - income fam ilies . The p rog ram p r ovioes h ousing for families dis plac ed by urban r enewal or 0-.:-. : ..-:..· g ove rnment a ction . Also for fc.r:-.ili es wi th low or moderate incomes and elderly or handicappe d persons . FHA d o es not g rant mort gage insurance d irectly to the contrac to r . I nstead upon approach by a con tra ctor , and foll owing app rova l a s to pr op e rty standards, location, need, e tc., t he FHA issues a commit tment to the con tr a ctor to issue 221 mortgage insuranc e to the buyers of t h e homes once th ey are built . The contra ct o r then finances his operations a s normal on t he private market . 221 mortgag e i nsu rance is also ava ilabl e f or non - new const ruction when an ind ivi dual is buying a house and rehab ilitat ing it to live in. The s ame elig i bilities and down payments apply . Normally, the FHA mort gage insurance will be for all c osts . Howeve r, if constru ction has started on the house b e fore the 221 i ns uranc e 1'ias rec eiv ed , th e mort gage i nsur ed cannot be for mo re t han 90% of value. Ad ditiona lly, i f the borrower is no t to be an o wne r - occupier (for example, a person renting hous i ng or mul ti - family units), . or if he is refinancing the p roperty, the mo rt gage c annot be more than 85% o f t he a mount

Ln:;n,n·ab:Le for an own@ t=occupie r., or 85% of the prop ei :cty v lu ,

wh ichever is less . Norma l ly , the max i mum mort gage term is 30 years . How ev e r, it c an be increased to 40 years when: ( a) in t he c ase of a d is plac ed family, the FHA dete r m~nes the mort gagor c annot make the required payments on a short e r - t erm mor t gage, ( b) in the c ase of ot h er mo rtgag ors, the mor t gag o r is ~he owner-occupant . and the FHA determines he c an 1 t ~ake the necessa ry payments in a shorter - term mort g a g e , p rovided the h ouse was a pp roved by FHA or VA before, and ins pe c ted during, construc t ion . Normal ly , builders have sold home s at a pri c e allowing fo r the maximu..'n mortgage to c over the pu rc hase price . Th ere f ore , the average purchase price would n o r,.ally b e the max imum mortgage to cover the purc hase price. Theref ore, ~t he avera ge pu r chase pric e would normally be the maximum mortgag e plus $ 200 for certifie d buyers or p lus 3% fo r other s.


Atla nt a t he maximum mo rtgage has ri sen a s the national maximum has risen. However, as t he maximum mortgage in




�Nature and Pu rpose continued :

1958 was purc has e $11,200 t $11,330 t

$ 1 1 ,000 and to day it is $12 ,50 0 , the average price c a n be s a i d to have been from a bout o $1 2 ,700 for c ertified buye rs and f rom about o $12,850 for oth er buye rs.

It shoul d be noted that mortgage s on the multi - family renta l housing or home s rented under this prog ram are a ll at the established FHA interest rat e ( 5 3/4%) and that on this housing the r e are n o income limitations on occupants a s there are on the below-market interest rate housing unde r 22l(d )(3). .· Eligib ility : P riority i s g ive n to families who are qualifie d on credit, family - re l ated by blood, and c e rtifi ed by t he U. R. A. as be ing d isplaced by g overnmental action . These persons c an p ay a minimwn $ 200 d own payment. Other persons who a re not fa:-:iilies but are ove r 62 years o f a g e or phys i c a l ly hand ic apped can , if otherwise qua li f ied ., qualify fo r the minimum $200 drn·m Rayment , or $400 fo r a two - family dwe llin g ., $6 00 for th r ee ., $800 f or f our. All other persons, i f they ar e families o r over 6 2 or handicapped are eli g ible for 221 home mortgage i ns urance but only f or sing le family units, but they must pay down 3% of t he t o tal aquis i tion cost o f the home -which would be about $37 5 ,00 t o day as t he maximum mortgage insurable in Atla nta under 221 is $12, 500. Non- c e r tified · fami li es a r e a llowed t o purc hase 221 housing bec ause, a lthoug h the p rog ram is int ended for displaced pe rsons , the FHA desires t o s ee all units, constructed with FHA encourage ment under 221, purchased. Present Utilization : From 1935 throug h 1965, 3 , 8 31 home mort gage s have been issue d u nder this prog r a m at a v alu e o f $ 37.,991 .,450 . In 1965, 252 home mo r tgages were insure d f or const ru ction u n der 221 at a value of $2 ., 565 ,900 (thes e fi gures included i n 1935 65 to tal abov ~ ) . In 1965., 6~ home mort ~a g es were _p rof o ~e d fo r construction., but as of J anuary 1 960 ., not cons Gruc vea, for-a total of $769,000 ( not i ncluded i n 1936-65 total above ). These tota ls include 221 new sales housing ., homes bo~ght a n d rehabi litated under 221., and homes bough and rehabilita ted ~ya n on- occupant under 221. These fi gur e s are fo r th e standa rd Metrop o litan Atlanta a r e a . There has not b een any ma rke t-rate 221 mort gage insuranc e f o r ·multi- family h ousing ( up to 4 - family units) in Atlan t a as o f J anuary, 1 966 .

�Progra m:

FHi\ 221 ( d) ( 3) Mortgag e Insurance At Below Ma rket Ra te Int eres t For Ren~a l and Coop erativ e Housing For _Families of Low and Moderate Income

Nature and Purpose : There are a number of famil i es whose incomes ·a re too h i gh for p ublic housing , but not high enough to comp ete fo r adequate hous i ng in the private marke t. Some of these familie s have been forced into the mar ke t because of urban renewal or . other gove r nmental action . To help the se families obta in housing at p ric es they c an afford, ~h e Fede r a l Housing Administration insures mortgages on special terms unde r the provisions of Section 22l(d)(3) of the Nat ional Housing Act . · To keep t h e rents within t h e means of the p eople f or whom the hous ing i s intended , the Act autho riz es a mort gag e interest rate below the current market rate on FHA- insured mortgages . Priorities f or occupancy are g ive n to families dis placed by g overnmental action. Othe r families whose incomes are within th e limits e stablishe d b y FEA a l so can qualify for occupancy, as c a n single -elderly or handic apped persons . Proposed new construction, and existing properties r equiring rehabilitation, with five or more units may be eligible for mort g age insurance . A mortgag e i nsu r ed under Section 22l ( d)(3) may c a rry a marke t inte r est rate (at the p r e sent time not more than pe rc e nt), or a below-market rat e .


Under th ese p rovisions, the intere st rate durin g construc~ion may be as h i gh as the establis hed FHA maximum interest r a te a t the time of construction . Upon fina l e n do r sement of t h e loan, th e interest r a te will b e lowered t o 3 p erc e n t ·. FEA wa ives th e mortgage insurance premiu m o f ½ perc ent f or p rojects with this low interest rate . For.public a g e nc ies , cooperatives (includ ing investor :... sp onsored ), and non-profit _sponsors, mort gag es on new con structi on ma y not exc ee d t he r e pla c ement cos t o f th e proj e c t ; on r e habili t a tion pro j e cts, t h e e st i mate d co st o f rehabi lit at ion plus t h e v a lue of th e proj ec t before r ehab i l itati on; or -i f refina n c i ~g is ~nvolved , the estimated cost of rehabilitation p lus t · e amount re qui r e d to r e finance t h e out - s t anding indebt e dn e ss . Fo r l i mite d - d istri bution mortgag ors, mo rt gages ma y not exce ed 90 pe rc e nt of these amounts . T:Crn mortgage on any p roj e c t i s f urth e r limi t e d by s u ch fa ctors as family income limits estab li shed by the FHA, and deb t s ervice considerations .


�Nature and Purpose


The max i mum mortgag e term is 40 years or three quarte rs of the ?HA estimate of the remaining economic life of the prope r ty, whi chever is less. The maximun mort g a g e araount is $12,500,000 . The mortgag e on any proj ec t is l143.215.248.55t ed by construction costs and median income fig ures es tajlish ed by FHA f or the area . Information regarding these limita tions for a pa rticula r area may be obtained from the local FHA insuring office. Public and private limited distribution projects : If advances are to be insured during const r uction two percent of the orig inal principal amount of the mortgage will be required as working capital . This fund must be deposited with the mortgag ee by the mort gagor and must come from sourc es other than mortgag e proceeds. ?riva te nonprofit projec ts ~ An allowance of two percent to make th e pro ject operational, in lieu of working capital , may be included in the mortgage . Wit h re s pec t to rent, carrying c ha r ges , and o ccupancy requi rement s, FHA control s will be maintained unti l the i nsured mortg age is p a id in ful l . To prevent ea rly refinancing and releas e o f FHA controls, full or partial p re - payment of the insured mortgage without app roval of the FHA Commissioner is prohibite d , except that limited d istribution mortgagors may pay in full aft e r 20 years f rom the date of final endors ement without such approval . All housing financed unde r the p rogram must operate in a ccordance with re gulat ion s as to rentals, c harges, methods of operation and occupancy requirements set forth by t he ?iiA. Occupanc y is limited to families and to elde rly or handi capped indivi duals of low and moderate income, with preferenc e being giv e n to di splacees . . Project s may be sold only with the prior approval of FHA and subject to prescribe d conditions. Elig ibility : Proje cts may be deve loped b y public agencies (except loc a l h ousin g authoriti es that obtain their funds exclusiv e l y f or p ublic housing f r om the Fe deral Government) or by c o-- opera ti ves (inc luding inve stor - sponsored), priv ate nonp rofit c o rpo ~ations or as sociations, or limited di st ribution corp ora tions , or other mortg a g ors approve d by t h e FHA Commissione r . A n onprofi t mort g agor is a corporat ion or associ a tion organi z e d for p urposes other than the making of prof it f or its e lf or p e r s ons identified with it a nd found by Fn A to b e i n n o ma nne r c ontroll e d by or under the dire ction o f p e rsons or firms seeking to deriv e profit from it .

'--1, -

�Page 3,


Elig i b ility


builde r- se ller mortgagor is a special type of l im~te d d is tribut ion mortgago r organized to build or rehabilitate a proje ct and sell it, i~nediately upon complet ion, to a p r i v ate nonprofit o rganization at the c ertified c ost of the project . r

A public mortga g or is a Federal i nstrumentality, a Sta te or its p olitical subdivision, or a n instrumentality o f a SGat e o r of its political subdivision, wh ich c ertifies t h a t it is not receiving financial assistance exclusively for pub lic h ousing from the Federal Government and whic h is acceptable t o the FHA .

A limit ed d istribution mo rtgag or i s a corpo r ati on r estricted as to distr ibution of inc ome by the laws of the Stat e of its incorporation ( or by FHA) - or a trust, pa rt ne rs ~ ip , a ss oc iation , individual, or oth er entity restricted by law or by t h e FHA a s to distribution s of income - forme d exc lusively for the purpose of providing housing and r e g ulat ed as to rents, c harg es, rat e o f return, and operating methods i n a manner satisfac tory to the FHA . A cooperative mortgagor is a nonprof it coopera-cive 0 .-m e rs h ip hous ing corporation approved by FHA . Pe r manent oc c u panc y i s restricted to t he membe rs , and e lig i bility and transfe rs of membership are subject t o FHA controls . 1


An investor - sponsor mo r tgag or i s a s pecial type of l imi t ed· distribution mortgagor organized to build or rehabilit ate a project and transfer it to a cooperative . If the project is not sold to a coopera tive with in two years after co~ ple tion , the investor sp onsor wi ll op erate it as a limite d dist ribution corpo r at ion, for the purposes a ut h orized . To live in these l ow rent p r ojects, famili e s mu st be making less than $ 5,250 per year . It should be noted that these - income limitations do not apply to re gular 221 housing . This is a maximum income limitation which va rie s by family s iz e . There is no absolute minimum but a minimum n e t i n come a ft e r t a xe s and obli~a t i ons, whi ch v aries by the type of a pa r tment involv ed and the types of oblig ations out s t a nding , is required . · P ri o rities are given to families c e rtified by U . R . A : a s d i sp laced by g overnment action . For individua l s t o be e l i g i bl e , they a lso mu s t h a ve suff i c i e nt f ina nc i al c apa city a n d be b l ood - re l ated ( e xcep t f or p e rsons over 62 or -che handi c app e d ). Th e r e are no mini mum income l i mits, but each f amily must pass a credit check to show they can .afford the housing .



/ v



�Page 4. ·

Pr ese nt Uti li zation :

A t ot a l of 16 p ro je cts , p rov idi ng 2,071 u nit s hav e bee n bu ilt, a re under const ruct i on, or i n p l anning i n ~etrop ol itan Atla nta . Those proje c ts, statu s and rental rang es and income limita tions f oll ow: Occupied Wheat Stre et Ga rd ens 323 I rwin Street , N. E. Sp ons or : Church Homes, Inc. ( Pri va t e , n onp ro fit) 2Bo u n i t s - $2, 975,000 - Op ened 196 5 Rent a l Housing Income Limi t s: 2 person s - $5 , 650 6 , 650 3 & 4 5 & 6 7,650 All 2 bedroom apartment s, unfu r nis hed, ligh t , ga s a n d t eleph one a ddi t i ona l . $69 . 50 mont h Rents : Up s tai rs Downsta r is - 72 , 50 month

All en Temp l e Apartme nts

  1. 1

11 Allen Templ e Court , N.W. Sp ons or : All en Temp le Chu rch ( Priva te , n onp ro f it ) 150 units (10 bu i ldi ngs, 15 units ea ch ) , finan c ing not y et clo sed - Op ened Dec emb e r, 1965 . Rental Housing 2 person s I nc ome Limits: $5 , 250 6 , 650 3 & 4 5 & 6 7,150 7 .or more 8 , 500 2 and 3 b e dro om apa rtment s , unfu r n i she d . Light, gas a nd. t eleph one a dditiona l. Rents : 2 bedroom on t er rac e $62 . 00 month 2 bed r oom 1st and 2nd f l. 65 . 00 72 , 50 3 bed room on t erra ce 3 bed room· l st and 2nd f l. 75,00 East'wyck Village 2892 Eas t wyck Circle , De c a t u r Sp ons or: FCH Company, I n c. ( Founda t ion f or Coop e r a t i v e Hous i ng, Sta nf or d, Conn. ) (P r ivate , nonp rofi t) 6 se ctions, 441 units - $5, 37 3 , 400 - Opened 1965 Coope rative Housi ng 1 p e rson $4 , 650 (mu s t b e over 62 yea rs) I ncome Limi ts : 2 5 , 650 6 , 650 3 & 4 7,650 5 & 6 7 or more 8,650


J) --

�Page 5,

Eas twyck Village


Furni s hed apartments .

Water , sewerageand garbage are

$3,70 additional . Payments :

1 ·b8d: oom $53 . 00 month 2 bedro~ 69 . 00 month 2 bedroom , l ½ bath s, basement 3 bedroom 77.00 3 be d room, l ½ baths, b asement 4 be drooms, l ½ baths, basement

$79 . 00 mon t h 84 .00 94 . oo

· under Con struction Allen Temple Apartment s # 2 11 Al len Temple Court, N. W. Spons or: Allen Te~p le Church (P riv~ t e, nonprofi t) 225 units, completion early 1967 · Rental Hous ing Same as Allen Temple · Apa rtments # l I nc ome Limits: Same as Allen Temple Apartments # 1 Rents: Cambri dge Sauare

3061 Oakdale Road, Doraville, Georgia Sponsor :

FCH Company, Inc.

( Private, · nonprofit)

134 units - complet ion March 1967 124 units - completion September, 1967 Cooperative Housing Income Limits: 1 person







7 or more Unfurnished apartments . addit iona l $3 .70 c harge Payments:

$L~, 350 (must be over 62 years)

5,250 6, 200


7~150 8,050

Wa ter, sewerage and garbage are an

1 bedroom $58 . oo 2 bedroom 69 .00 2 b ed room , l ½ bath , basement 79 .00 3 b e droom 3 bedroom, 1.1 bath basement 4 bedroom, l ½ bath: basement

79 . 00 86 . oo 97 . 00

I n P_anning o r di s cuss i on : Wheat St re e t Ga rdens

( addi tion)

323 I rwin St r eet, N. E . Sponsor :

Chur c h Home s, Inc .

( P rivat e , n onp rof it)

240 units in p l a nni n g , construc t ion to s t art spring 1967 ( will probably b e mostly 3 bedroom apa rtments ) Rental housing .


Pac;e 6 .


I n Planning or dis cus s i on · continue d

97 unit s in planning , commitment issue d (but, b e c au s e rent v alue s were t oo low, mi ght be reconsidered), no con s t ruction plans yet . Bal lard He i ghts

84 u nit s in planning, no formal application yet Halyc on 200 units in planning , no formal app lication yet ?a r k Wes t

96 units in planning, no formal application yet



.I -, , )


Current Page Discussion [edit] [history]